America's Gun Violence

CM189191

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yup, gotta tally 4 deaths first.

For example, there was a shooting outside my building last night.  Usually there are dozens of people from the community hanging around the sidewalk at any given time of day.  However, since they only grazed 2 by-standers, it's not a mass shooting.

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

There has to be some clear definition if they are going to make it a stat. I'm guessing if that were to ever happen they may rethink the way they label it, but someone spraying bullets into a crowd  at a school and not injuring anyone is extremely unlikely. Someone killing their ex girlfriend and new bf is just a double homicide, so as it stands a mass shooting is 4 or more injured. My understanding has always been injured and not killed, there have been mass shooting with zero deaths according to the FBI stats.

mcgruff10

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.

There's a level of consistency there.

I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.

There's a level of consistency there.

I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?

What is the fbi equivalent in Canada called?  And is the definition the same?

mace1229

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.

mcgruff10

Here's the laws that we have in new jersey.  Give it a read if you'd like.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/10/what_guns_can_you_legally_own_in_nj.html#incart_river_home

HughFreakingDillon

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.

There's a level of consistency there.

I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?

What is the fbi equivalent in Canada called?  And is the definition the same?

CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service). 

not sure. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

This... is... awesome:

http://www.comedycentral.com.au/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/videos/john-oliver-on-gun-control-in-the-us-vs-australia#gun-control-whoopdedoo

brianlux

I keep seeing black and white here. Not all of us who are not gun enthusiasts have said BAN ALL GUNS!  Honestly, I wouldn't mind that, but I know that's not going to happen and I am willing to concede that and hope for some kind of compromise (and I hate compromise but sometimes it's necessary). 

Are gun fans here are more concerned about keeping your guns and being able to have any you want than considering at least some reasonable restrictions that could help curb all the violent killing in America?  Which matters more to you, keeping your guns and being able to have all kinds, or reducing violence in America? I think some of you may be in favor of some restrictions and better background checks but I'm really not sure.

And, OK, some of you didn't like the stats I posted but you will never convince me that violent gun death is a huge problem in America and more so than in most parts of the world.

And after all this time and 220 pages of discussion have we gotten any closer to a solution.  Is that not at least a bit bothersome? Depressing is what I call it.

my2hands

There is no debate.... guns fucking suck

riley540

my2hands said:

There is no debate.... guns fucking suck

There are many people who have saved their family’s and businesses because of guns. Many people rely on them to feed their families. 

So there very very much is a debate. 

tbergs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.

There's a level of consistency there.

I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?

Just a guess, but probably to rule out domestic situations where the ex and new partner are killed and then the shooter takes their own life. This does then make situations where 3 random people are killed get classified as just another typical murder though.

tbergs

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.

I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.

No, it's not skewed and it's not a big sinister plot.

The FBI does not define mass shooting. They do define mass killing as "murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders". Other research bodies have modified that to three or more persons dead, while others do include wounded and/or dead. Generally the definition does not include the perpetrator, where he dies also. Where other research bodies publish research, they often use FBI data.

Regardless, the people are still dead, so it's difficult to see how one can spin this as a lie or a sinister plot.

tbergs

riley540 said:

my2hands said:

There is no debate.... guns fucking suck

There are many people who have saved their family’s and businesses because of guns. Many people rely on them to feed their families. 

So there very very much is a debate. 

I agree with the feeding your family debate, but any other argument doesn't make sense.

• In 2014, the FBI reports there were only 224 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 7,670 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 34 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
• Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2013 and 2015.
• Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.2 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2013 and 2015.

When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf

And for those who think the above is jaded to be to anti gun.

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

mace1229

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.

I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.

I disagree with the first part. One of the articles I read was posted here within the last few days that said "according to the FBI...." then goes on to quote mass shootings.
Not that it makes the incidents it less bad, but it clearly is misquoting data to push a point. I've read multiple articles in this week that talk about mass shooting victims, all included injuries of 4 or more and nearly all claimed to be using the FBI as a source.
Not that it means we shouldn't do anything about it, but it is skewing or misrepresenting the data.
I agree that its still disturbing.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.

I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.

I disagree with the first part. One of the articles I read was posted here within the last few days that said "according to the FBI...." then goes on to quote mass shootings.
Not that it makes the incidents it less bad, but it clearly is misquoting data to push a point. I've read multiple articles in this week that talk about mass shooting victims, all included injuries of 4 or more and nearly all claimed to be using the FBI as a source.
Not that it means we shouldn't do anything about it, but it is skewing or misrepresenting the data.
I agree that its still disturbing.

Nope, not at all clear that the media is misquoting FBI stats to push a point. The FBI does collect this data, of course; they just don't use that term, but other people are free to use the term. The media may be misrepresenting it but the fact that that's your first conclusion says a lot.

Maybe post a link to an article that you think misrepresents the data an we can take a look.

tbergs

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......

Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead.  
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.

Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.

I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.

I disagree with the first part. One of the articles I read was posted here within the last few days that said "according to the FBI...." then goes on to quote mass shootings.
Not that it makes the incidents it less bad, but it clearly is misquoting data to push a point. I've read multiple articles in this week that talk about mass shooting victims, all included injuries of 4 or more and nearly all claimed to be using the FBI as a source.
Not that it means we shouldn't do anything about it, but it is skewing or misrepresenting the data.
I agree that its still disturbing.

Nope, not at all clear that the media is misquoting FBI stats to push a point. The FBI does collect this data, of course; they just don't use that term, but other people are free to use the term. The media may be misrepresenting it but the fact that that's your first conclusion says a lot.

Maybe post a link to an article that you think misrepresents the data an we can take a look.

Maybe this will help clear up why there is such a misperception out there. Again, I don't think anyone is being misleading, but those referencing the data need to understand what it means.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/04/the-squishy-definition-of-mass-shooting-complicates-media-coverage/?utm_term=.0afa15025993

PJPOWER

Nevermind