Well yes, we would be best served if most people did not have handguns. There is no need to single out specific demographics. As for failed policies, I would tend to look at policies which allow anyone to walk into a store and get a gun at the drop of a hat. I am pretty sure it is not Democrats pushing Constitutional Carry (like say in Texas where the shooting you were talking about occurred).
The yet another mass shooting thread
- Thread starter Lt_Storm
- Start date
Well yes, we would be best served if most people did not have handguns. There is no need to single out specific demographics. As for failed policies, I would tend to look at policies which allow anyone to walk into a store and get a gun at the drop of a hat. I am pretty sure it is not Democrats pushing Constitutional Carry (like say in Texas where the shooting you were talking about occurred).
The entire "no Good Guys with Guns" comment was meant to address the functional stupidity of polite=armed society. Based on @Alexander's information, we have to consider the possibility that the shooters themselves were Good Guys With Guns up until the moment they suddenly weren't.
3 killed, 11 wounded in mass shooting outside Arkansas grocery store
Few additional details. Will this be the last mass shooting of the weekend?
Few additional details. Will this be the last mass shooting of the weekend?
What an apropos name for the scene of the crime: Mad Butcher. This is indeed troubling.
I can see having a Ranch Rifle or an AR-15 if you had a farm/ranch to deal with hogs and such but for home defense in a crowed neighborhood?
Miss the burglar and shoot through the next two neighbor's houses.
edited for: At least they got the guy.
Miss the burglar and shoot through the next two neighbor's houses.
edited for: At least they got the guy.
from this article about the shooting:
really? In America? In Arkansas? It's not exactly the kind of state where mass shootings don't happen on the regular.
| State | Count of Incident ID | Sum of Victims Killed | Sum of Victims Injured | Sum of Suspects Killed | Sum of Suspects Injured | Sum of Suspects Arrested |
| Florida | 18 | 18 | 73 | 2 | 1 | 16 |
| Illinois | 18 | 25 | 70 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| California | 17 | 24 | 80 | 0 | 1 | 20 |
| Texas | 15 | 13 | 71 | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Pennsylvania | 15 | 16 | 63 | 2 | 0 | 7 |
| Alabama | 13 | 15 | 57 | 0 | 1 | 14 |
| Missouri | 12 | 9 | 65 | 1 | 3 | 12 |
| Louisiana | 10 | 9 | 42 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Michigan | 9 | 3 | 47 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Georgia | 9 | 8 | 40 | 0 | 2 | 19 |
| Mississippi | 9 | 7 | 39 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Tennessee | 9 | 7 | 39 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Virginia | 8 | 7 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Ohio | 7 | 9 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| North Carolina | 7 | 13 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Arkansas | 6 | 9 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Indiana | 6 | 2 | 30 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| District of Columbia | 6 | 4 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| New York | 6 | 5 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Well, they do. They just have a disturbingly expansive definition.
Going to guess urban youth get far more coverage than warranted.
Oh wait, you said "happens to", not "happens by"...
That's a ridiculous understatment. We've had more mass shootings THIS YEAR.
Going to guess urban youth get far more coverage than warranted.
Oh wait, you said "happens to", not "happens by"...
May have to do with definitional changes. Per the site:
I would guess they are keeping a consistent definition in the graph, though I would agree that should be spelled out.
Remember kids, if you shoot 50 people and only two of them die, it's not a mass shooting.
According to gunviolencearchive.org, which uses that defnition for mass MURDER, there were 258 such incidents from 2015 to 2023, plus 12 so far this year. Mother Jones needs to learn how to count.
edit: (maybe before 2014 they had gun-enabled mass resurrections to offset or something.)
Last edited:
Not sure what the issue is with definitions changing over time or there being inconsistent definitions between compilation sources. Its not like a burning flame etched the definition on stone tablets. A mass pileup on the interstate does not typically refer to two cars having a fender-bender. That is not to say the accident was unimportant any more than saying two people being killed is unimportant.
Wikipedia:
That is from a 2024 source if you check their link.
The definition used for the graph is a massive undercount and therefore might not be representative of "mass shooting" by the more commonly used definition. It's apples and oranges.
To put it in perspective, the Statista graph indicates there have only been 149 mass shootings over basically my entire life. Other sources say there's been more than that this year alone.
It would be seriously interesting to redo the analysis with the more inclusive, non-murder definition.
To put it in perspective, the Statista graph indicates there have only been 149 mass shootings over basically my entire life. Other sources say there's been more than that this year alone.
It would be seriously interesting to redo the analysis with the more inclusive, non-murder definition.
While gun violence is gun violence and this country madly needs to do something about all levels of it, quibbling over 2, 3, or 4 and in public versus private (I guess) seems to miss both the basic picture and the desire to understand things like theater, concert, grocery store, etc. rampages dealing in dozens of victims.
This is not to minimize or set aside the much more common instances of one, two, or three people being shot and killed as those comprise the bulk of deaths. I can assure you from personal experience, family of those killed do really care if it takes an extra person to qualify as "mass".
The Mother Jones definition of 'mass shooting' attempts to capture the phenomenon of the lone shooter indiscriminately killing people in a public setting or workplace. Using the Mother Jones definition you get close to racial parity (black people and asian people commit mass shootings at slightly more that their share of population, white and latino people commit mass shootings at slightly less than their share of population). Using the Mother Jones definition we get 123 mass shootings between 1983 and 2021 (38 years).
The gunviolencearchive.org definition of 'mass shooting' attempts to capture the maximum number of incidents in order to sensationalize the topic and drive engagement. Their definition captures gang shootouts, family murder suicides, altercations outside of nightclubs and at large parties. Using the gunviolencearchive.org definition (instead of the Mother Jones definition) dramatically skews the racial makeup: black people commit close to 50% of mass shootings (again according to gunviolencearchive.org). Using the gunviolencearchive.org definition we get 2600 mass shootings in just the past 4 years.
EDIT - so basically the Mother Jones definition captures thing like Sandy Hook but doesn't count the altercation at a party where someone pulled a gun and shot and hit a bunch of people behind the enemy gang member but didn't kill them; the gv definition counts both incidents equally.
You can read the thread for yourself and decide whether posters understand the significance of the numbers they are posting or are intentionally misunderstanding the definitions for internet points.
Last edited:
because it answers the post (Fingolfin's) that I was responding to, which you didn't read because ________.
Shavano's criticism is incisive: if multiple people are merely injured, it's not considered a "mass shooting." Despite the fact that you potentially have a mass number of people being shot.
The Mother Jones definition could have been called "spree killings via gun" or "mass gun homicides." But dismissing people injured in mass shootings because they didn't DIE and therefore labeling them "not a mass shooting" is uncharacteristically poor form.
But we have more mass shootings than that every year by every reasonable use of the word "shooting." If someone gets hit with a bullet and survives, they don't jump to correct someone who says they were "shot" with "weeeeeeell since I survived, technically it wasn't in a shooting; I was merely kinetically influenced by low-flying lead."
Or they are looking at more than just spree killings from lone-wolf types and actually do want to talk about all those other incidents as phenomena inherent in our gun problem as a country. Their very name is "gun violence" not "spree killers."
You shouldn't aim to finagle definitions to reach pre-determined conclusions about race one way or the other. You should let the data speak.
I don't really see the significance or value in tracking gang shootings where 4 people were hit over gang shootings where only 1-3 people were hit, so I don't see the purpose of this thread except to intentionally conflate those statistics with the concept of the lone wolf / spree killer shooting rampage.
EDIT - in order to get internet points, if that wasn't clear enough.
EDIT - in order to get internet points, if that wasn't clear enough.
These are your preconceptions, not ours.
The very first post in this thread cites gunviolence.org's data and says nothing about wanting to exclude "gang shootings." The first three posts say nothing about lone wolf shooters but discuss the entire problem of gun violence in relation to mass shootings.
again, I don't understand the magic dividing line of 4 people shot, and how it's so much more significant than 3 people being shot. Just start a 'gun violence' thread and post the entire number of everyone being shot.
If you aren't trying to intentionally conflate it with spree killers (and the common understanding of the term 'mass shooting'), there's no reason not to.
It's focusing on fatalities versus injuries we're criticizing.
We have it. It's this one. Specifically it's about mass shootings.
Your description there of counting mass shootings regardless of whether the victims died or who did the shooting tells me a lot about what you value. You're not less dead or less injured if you're caught in the gunfire of a gang shooting or if your spouse murders you along with your family. Their actual goal though is to give the reader an accurate view of the level of gun violence in America. Mother Jones is intentionally discounting most gun violence. Why they do that I can only speculate, but they're obviously cherry picking, and so are you.
Mother Jones is attempting to track the phenomenon of spree shooters indiscriminately killing people in public places, which is what most people associate with the term "mass shooting".
You are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth, scolding people for supposedly not caring about caring about these 'lesser' mass shootings that add up to the big numbers that you are posting for internet points, while simultaneously talking out of the other side of your mouth about 'stochastic terrorism' and 'tacticool body armor and AR-15s' and 'do the police stop to think that she shooters look just like them' while discussing the very same numbers.
This is your post from the previous page:
in other words, using the 'spree killer' definition of mass shooting when it's convenient for a culture war football ( = internet points) out of one side of your mouth and out of the other side you are handwringing that Mother Jones doesn't care about minority teenagers shooting each other the way that you do.
So it sure looks like you want to use whatever definition gives you the most utility for culture war bullshit in the moment: you want to rage against the cops and the red team and for people to treat you like you're talking about spree shooters, but you also want to use a much more expansive definition to put up sensational numbers and scold people for not caring about victims as much as you.
For the record (once more), I think the red team is bad and I don't care one way or the other if everyone's guns get taken away. My earlier comment also stands: I'll believe that you actually care about these shooting deaths when you drop the culture war point-collecting and still post about it.
Trust me, you are the only one here obsessed with "internet points."
I might talk about the spree shooter phenomenon, but I don't try to sweep the rest under the rug.
Well one needs to separate out the class of the crimes. Criminal, Lone Wolf, disgruntled employee as each class requires it's own approach to solve.
Pretty sure it's the guns.
Those are the common element. So if there's a systemic fix, that's where it is. You can divide it into two or three or more separate problems, but then you lose focus on the shooting.