• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass shooting are uncommon, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
We always here the pro-gun side saying mass shootings are rare. They do not happen every day, right? Perhaps that is because of how we define mass shootings. The way mass shootings are defined you have to kill 4 or more people. But maybe that definition leaves out what some might consider are other mass shootings. What if a person opens fire and just wounds 4 people? Do we count it even though they were not able to kill people and only wounded a bunch? Well, obviously certain people *NRA and gunnuts* do not want to talk about that sort of thing. But how many more of those events could there be? It is not like that would put the number of shootings up to at least one per day on average. Or is it?

How Many Mass Shootings In The US? - YouTube

For those who do not want to read TYT is reporting on a stat that reddit came up with where there have been 247 mass shootings where at least 4 people have been wounded this year alone. There have been 228 days this year. That means that we average over 1 mass shooting a day which doesn't include shootings where less than 4 people have been wounded. But remember that the people who have a bias against negative info on guns coming out have failed to tell you how many of these mass shooting type of incidents have happened, and that they wish for you to think they are rare.

For further reference this video refers to this article in Huffpo:

We've Had So Many Mass Shootings In The U.S., We've Had To Redefine The Term

and in case you say i am just some gun grabber listening to a made up number by huffpo and TYT and you want a compiled list with news sources and reporting on every single one of those shootings so you can see for yourself here is the source with references to the actual reportings of these incidents linked:

2013massshootings - GunsAreCool
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Threegoofs captured the ordeal with a great sentence:

"Fight to the death for a right that increases probability of being killed better"

Lose-lose situation if you ask me :) .
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act.

So what's diffrent today than fifty yeas ago ?
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Threegoofs captured the ordeal with a great sentence:

"Fight to the death for a right that increases probability of being killed better"

Lose-lose situation if you ask me :) .

Nope, random is not going to work, please address the subject and argue against it.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act.

So what's diffrent today than fifty yeas ago ?

Nope, random is not going to work, please address the subject and argue against it.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Nope, random is not going to work, please address the subject and argue against it.

Random or not it is all I have for the moment.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Nope, random is not going to work, please address the subject and argue against it.

I posted this on another thread.
It's worth reading. He has an argument and I'm old enough to have watched the changes that have taken place in America. I think Lt. Col Grossman is on to something.

Excerpt:

>"Colonel Grossman next gave a comprehensive explanation of gunfight dynamics from start to aftermath. Drawing from his own research, as well as building on the work of others, Grossman described the anatomy and physiology of changes the body goes through in a life-or-death situation. He spoke about changes in brain function, rational thought, and perception in relation to accelerated heart rates. He described the proportionate crash that follows an adrenaline peak, and the resulting risk to officer safety from reduced mental efficiency.

In simple and understandable terms, Grossman went over the psychology of the act of killing. Taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act. People must be conditioned through proper training to overcome this natural revulsion, and to react automatically when it becomes necessary. In the aftermath, it is a given that specific physical and mental symptoms will manifest themselves. When they do, the condition is known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD for short. PTSD can result in severe depression, suicide, and destroyed families. Proper officer survival training should include the recognition of PTSD, and how to respond to it. The effects of PTSD can be mitigated by how we respond to others who have been involved in a critical incident.

Colonel Grossman unveiled what he believes to be the largest single threat to modern civilization: violent media and video games. As a soldier, this nemesis is Grossman's new Evil Empire, and he attacks it with a vengeance. Since television was introduced in the 1950s people have been gradually desensitized to violence, and conditioned to choose violence as an acceptable or even admirable method of solving problems. In television and movies, whenever an injustice needs to be righted, or a character becomes bothersome the solution is to blow them away. It's quick, provides instant gratification, and makes the purveyor of the act a hero. Who wants to suffer through a problem for months and work through it rationally, spiritually, or through communication? Yes, I was skeptical. We've all watched those movies and played video games with no conscious effect on our minds, but the statistics presented by Grossman weighed heavily in favor of his position. The operative word here is "conscious." As an expert in Psy-Ops (psychological) warfare, Grossman is well aware of the subliminal influence of the media. When it is pointed out it becomes painfully obvious that we have been effected..."<
continue. -> Impact of Gossman's Lecture on Media and Video Game Violence
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

I posted this on another thread.
It's worth reading. He has an argument and I'm old enough to have watched the changes that have taken place in America. I think Lt. Col Grossman is on to something.

Excerpt:

>"Colonel Grossman next gave a comprehensive explanation of gunfight dynamics from start to aftermath. Drawing from his own research, as well as building on the work of others, Grossman described the anatomy and physiology of changes the body goes through in a life-or-death situation. He spoke about changes in brain function, rational thought, and perception in relation to accelerated heart rates. He described the proportionate crash that follows an adrenaline peak, and the resulting risk to officer safety from reduced mental efficiency.

In simple and understandable terms, Grossman went over the psychology of the act of killing. Taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act. People must be conditioned through proper training to overcome this natural revulsion, and to react automatically when it becomes necessary. In the aftermath, it is a given that specific physical and mental symptoms will manifest themselves. When they do, the condition is known as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD for short. PTSD can result in severe depression, suicide, and destroyed families. Proper officer survival training should include the recognition of PTSD, and how to respond to it. The effects of PTSD can be mitigated by how we respond to others who have been involved in a critical incident.

Colonel Grossman unveiled what he believes to be the largest single threat to modern civilization: violent media and video games. As a soldier, this nemesis is Grossman's new Evil Empire, and he attacks it with a vengeance. Since television was introduced in the 1950s people have been gradually desensitized to violence, and conditioned to choose violence as an acceptable or even admirable method of solving problems. In television and movies, whenever an injustice needs to be righted, or a character becomes bothersome the solution is to blow them away. It's quick, provides instant gratification, and makes the purveyor of the act a hero. Who wants to suffer through a problem for months and work through it rationally, spiritually, or through communication? Yes, I was skeptical. We've all watched those movies and played video games with no conscious effect on our minds, but the statistics presented by Grossman weighed heavily in favor of his position. The operative word here is "conscious." As an expert in Psy-Ops (psychological) warfare, Grossman is well aware of the subliminal influence of the media. When it is pointed out it becomes painfully obvious that we have been effected..."<
continue. -> Impact of Gossman's Lecture on Media and Video Game Violence

Just so I do not confuse the meaning of your statement now that you have explained it. It seems you are saying we should look at media and the influences of what enables a person to do these things as part of a solution? If this is what you are actually saying, I am probably going to amaze you a bit here. I actually agree. I do not agree with banning of things like violent media and video games, but I do think that a better understanding of how they effect us and how that comes into play with these mass shootings may give us ways to present these things safer. I do not exactly know what would be done there, but the first step is to get a good grasp of what is actually going on, and yes that does mean we honestly look into our media to see the effects it has on us and how it may be driving these events. if we could counteract a negative effect the media may be having on our society we would lower those events if this is why they are occurring. I have to say if I am reading what you say right I think what you are saying needs to be a legitimate part of the discussion.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act.

So what's diffrent today than fifty yeas ago ?
gun-ownership-declining1.jpg
Probably the decline in gun ownership, causing an imbalance of power in favor of criminals that still have them.

There's two ways to fix an imbalance like this, take away the criminal's guns, or give guns to the innocent. The latter is the most effective and least Authoritarian option, while the former is nearly impossible.

Do guns cause mass shootings? Sure, you can't shoot someone without a gun. To act like that's a reason to ban them is ridiculous; the total crime rate goes down even when gun crimes increase, you'll miss the big picture if you focus on "mass shootings" instead of the total violent crime rates. Even if my armed neighbors put me at a slightly higher chance of getting shot, I'm still thankful that they carry, since my total chances of being murdered are less as are my chances of being robbed. It's the big picture that matters.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

We always here the pro-gun side saying mass shootings are rare. They do not happen every day, right? Perhaps that is because of how we define mass shootings. The way mass shootings are defined you have to kill 4 or more people. But maybe that definition leaves out what some might consider are other mass shootings. What if a person opens fire and just wounds 4 people? Do we count it even though they were not able to kill people and only wounded a bunch? Well, obviously certain people *NRA and gunnuts* do not want to talk about that sort of thing. But how many more of those events could there be? It is not like that would put the number of shootings up to at least one per day on average. Or is it?

How Many Mass Shootings In The US? - YouTube

For those who do not want to read TYT is reporting on a stat that reddit came up with where there have been 247 mass shootings where at least 4 people have been wounded this year alone. There have been 228 days this year. That means that we average over 1 mass shooting a day which doesn't include shootings where less than 4 people have been wounded. But remember that the people who have a bias against negative info on guns coming out have failed to tell you how many of these mass shooting type of incidents have happened, and that they wish for you to think they are rare.

For further reference this video refers to this article in Huffpo:

We've Had So Many Mass Shootings In The U.S., We've Had To Redefine The Term

and in case you say i am just some gun grabber listening to a made up number by huffpo and TYT and you want a compiled list with news sources and reporting on every single one of those shootings so you can see for yourself here is the source with references to the actual reportings of these incidents linked:

2013massshootings - GunsAreCool
No offense but reddit made up their own definition that includes a significantly larger amount of incidents as "mass shootings" than the definition used by most sources. The official definition from the FBI is that a "mass murder" is where a murderer kills 4 people at one time in one place, not including themselves. Using that as a basis for "mass shooting", all you would do is also require that the murders be due to gun violence. Reddit's definition doesn't require the victims to die and also includes the shooter if they commit suicide. That exponentially increases the numbers they'd find. It smacks of yellow journalism.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

No offense but reddit made up their own definition that includes a significantly larger amount of incidents as "mass shootings" than the definition used by most sources. The official definition from the FBI is that a "mass murder" is where a murderer kills 4 people at one time in one place, not including themselves. Using that as a basis for "mass shooting", all you would do is also require that the murders be due to gun violence. Reddit's definition doesn't require the victims to die and also includes the shooter if they commit suicide. That exponentially increases the numbers they'd find. It smacks of yellow journalism.

So what you are saying is that incidents where people with bad aim do this sort of thing shouldn't count?
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

View attachment 67153784
Probably the decline in gun ownership, causing an imbalance of power in favor of criminals that still have them.

There's two ways to fix an imbalance like this, take away the criminal's guns, or give guns to the innocent. The latter is the most effective and least Authoritarian option, while the former is nearly impossible.

Do guns cause mass shootings? Sure, you can't shoot someone without a gun. To act like that's a reason to ban them is ridiculous; the total crime rate goes down even when gun crimes increase, you'll miss the big picture if you focus on "mass shootings" instead of the total violent crime rates. Even if my armed neighbors put me at a slightly higher chance of getting shot, I'm still thankful that they carry, since my total chances of being murdered are less as are my chances of being robbed. It's the big picture that matters.

This is not a discussion of that. That is for another topic. this is about how defining mass shootings with too small of a brush skews numbers down. I do not think it is terribly unreasonable to call a shooting spree where 4 people were only wounded a mass shooting. I actually thought that these sorts of shootings were uncommon and i figured we would hear about woundings. This was outside of my point of view and I was looking for stuff like this. It seems to me that there is a definite effort to lower numbers and make such events seem uncommon merely because the shooter didn't get a high enough score. It is clear there are many more people trying to play the game. You may wish to argue that our response to incidents keeps things from being fatal and therefor this is what you need to expect from having guns at this level of legality, but those numbers should be presented to the public and not hidden by playing pretend that a mass shooting is not a mass shooting just because the shooter sucked at it.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

This is not a discussion of that. That is for another topic. this is about how defining mass shootings with too small of a brush skews numbers down. I do not think it is terribly unreasonable to call a shooting spree where 4 people were only wounded a mass shooting. I actually thought that these sorts of shootings were uncommon and i figured we would hear about woundings. This was outside of my point of view and I was looking for stuff like this. It seems to me that there is a definite effort to lower numbers and make such events seem uncommon merely because the shooter didn't get a high enough score. It is clear there are many more people trying to play the game. You may wish to argue that our response to incidents keeps things from being fatal and therefor this is what you need to expect from having guns at this level of legality, but those numbers should be presented to the public and not hidden by playing pretend that a mass shooting is not a mass shooting just because the shooter sucked at it.

Of course it all depends on what your definitions are. If you define a "mass shooting" as an event in which multiple people got shot then "mass shootings" are a fairly common occurrence in most countries. Take into account that in this way you also define many purely domestic gun incidents as "mass shootings". Personally I think that is pretty pointless.
It seems to me that if you're going to define "mass shootings" you would be better off looking at the motivation of the perpetrator. To me a "mass shooting" is an event where one or more perpetrators purposely set out to shoot as many people as possible, randomly and without specific personal targets. Whether or not he/she/they succeed is immaterial. This means some incidents where only few people were shot will be classified as "mass shootings" while other incidents in which large numbers of people were killed will not be classified as "mass shootings".
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Of course it all depends on what your definitions are. If you define a "mass shooting" as an event in which multiple people got shot then "mass shootings" are a fairly common occurrence in most countries. Take into account that in this way you also define many purely domestic gun incidents as "mass shootings". Personally I think that is pretty pointless.
It seems to me that if you're going to define "mass shootings" you would be better off looking at the motivation of the perpetrator. To me a "mass shooting" is an event where one or more perpetrators purposely set out to shoot as many people as possible, randomly and without specific personal targets. Whether or not he/she/they succeed is immaterial. This means some incidents where only few people were shot will be classified as "mass shootings" while other incidents in which large numbers of people were killed will not be classified as "mass shootings".

yes, i understand all of that, but is it not reasonable to call it a mass shooting where in a single incident a shooter hit and wounded 4 people in a spree? Just because they suck at it is no reason to not include them.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

yes, i understand all of that, but is it not reasonable to call it a mass shooting where in a single incident a shooter hit and wounded 4 people in a spree? Just because they suck at it is no reason to not include them.

It depends on what his/her motivation was. Many instances of people shooting 4 other people aren't really "mass shootings". On the other hand some instances of people shooting fewer people are "mass shootings". It's wrong and frankly stupid to turn this into a numbers game.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

It depends on what his/her motivation was. Many instances of people shooting 4 other people aren't really "mass shootings". On the other hand some instances of people shooting fewer people are "mass shootings". It's wrong and frankly stupid to turn this into a numbers game.

No, it is wrong to downplay it's occurrences with semantic BS.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

No, it is wrong to downplay it's occurrences with semantic BS.

So basically you feel it is wrong to approach this rationally?
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

So basically you feel it is wrong to approach this rationally?

if that means that you feel that including shootings where 4 people are wounded in a spree is wrong then .....I am not talking about something that is absurd like saying a hunter who accidentally wounds four people should be an incident reported under that, but look up the references and tell me if you think they should be considered mass shootings or not. All the information is there for you, so make your argument that they are not and why quit with the semantic BS.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

if that means that you feel that including shootings where 4 people are wounded in a spree is wrong then .....I am not talking about something that is absurd like saying a hunter who accidentally wounds four people should be an incident reported under that, but look up the references and tell me if you think they should be considered mass shootings or not. All the information is there for you, so make your argument that they are not and why quit with the semantic BS.

People who react to others trying to define clearly what is being talked about by saying this is semantic BS indicate that they are incapable of rational debate.

If you really read the lists of incidents in the links you provided you will have seen it is a complete hash of very different incidents including domestic family situations, workplace incidents, crminal acts, and real mass shootings.

But clearly you aren't really interested in facts or rational debate.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

People who react to others trying to define clearly what is being talked about by saying this is semantic BS indicate that they are incapable of rational debate.

If you really read the lists of incidents in the links you provided you will have seen it is a complete hash of very different incidents including domestic family situations, workplace incidents, crminal acts, and real mass shootings.

But clearly you aren't really interested in facts or rational debate.

but that shows the problem is bigger than is reported on. pretending like the only ones that matter are the ones that the media cherry picks is part of the problem. I am actually thinking we might be arguing the same thing. Why are we not looking at these other times as mass shootings also because it may give us more insight into how to stop some of them.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

but that shows the problem is bigger than is reported on. pretending like the only ones that matter are the ones that the media cherry picks is part of the problem. I am actually thinking we might be arguing the same thing. Why are we not looking at these other times as mass shootings also because it may give us more insight into how to stop some of them.

We are not arguing the same thing. What matters is to define clearly what a "mass shooting" is. Not trying to classify as many incidents as possible as "mass shootings", which is what you're trying to do, as are the lists you provided links to.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

So what you are saying is that incidents where people with bad aim do this sort of thing shouldn't count?
Yes. It's not what the standard definition includes and makes the numbers seem a lot bigger. We shouldn't belittle these incidents, they still shouldn't have happened, but it's a bad idea to change definitions to match your numbers. Why stop there, why not include every time they shot at 4 people and missed completely? Or if they just think about shooting at 4 people? There's no limit to how we could inflate the numbers to match whatever we want. We should use the official definition if we're going to debate with statistics.

This is not a discussion of that. That is for another topic. this is about how defining mass shootings with too small of a brush skews numbers down. I do not think it is terribly unreasonable to call a shooting spree where 4 people were only wounded a mass shooting. I actually thought that these sorts of shootings were uncommon and i figured we would hear about woundings. This was outside of my point of view and I was looking for stuff like this. It seems to me that there is a definite effort to lower numbers and make such events seem uncommon merely because the shooter didn't get a high enough score. It is clear there are many more people trying to play the game. You may wish to argue that our response to incidents keeps things from being fatal and therefor this is what you need to expect from having guns at this level of legality, but those numbers should be presented to the public and not hidden by playing pretend that a mass shooting is not a mass shooting just because the shooter sucked at it.
Why should we skew the numbers up? I personally think just 4 is too few, and would like a new definition linked to population density. Killing 4 people in a city is practically normal these days, where killing even one or two people in an Amish town would be earth shaking. The issue is that "mass shooting" should hold a real meaning, or it'll be watered down and become a cliche. When you overemphasize a problem, people start to ignore it.

Ultimately the only reason to emphasize the mass shootings is to give gun-grabbers a strangle hold on law-abiding citizens, so I think it's doubly dangerous to skew those numbers up. Mass shootings are statistically over represented in gun free zones and gun controlled counties; It's simply not as cut and dry as Reddit or gun-grabbers would like us to believe.

On a personal note, it's strange that you didn't realize how much violence there is around you. According to the cdc, there were 16,259 homicides in America during 2010. If that number is even remotely accurate for today, an American is murdered every 30 minutes. It happens and we need to deal with it, but we need to use statistics to reduce crime; overemphasizing this crime could quite literally be the cause of it, in one way or another.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

We are not arguing the same thing. What matters is to define clearly what a "mass shooting" is. Not trying to classify as many incidents as possible as "mass shootings", which is what you're trying to do, as are the lists you provided links to.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that mass shootings should just be considered by the definition they give which excludes incidents where 4 or more people get shot in a single incident.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

So let me get this straight, you are saying that mass shootings should just be considered by the definition they give which excludes incidents where 4 or more people get shot in a single incident.

It depends on what the intent was. Is somebody going out on purpose to shoot as many random people as possible? Or not?

Do you believe that a man who shoots his wife and two children in an act of despair constitutes a mass shooting?
Do you believe a terrorist shooting numerous soldiers in a terrorist attack constitutes a mass shooting?

It is simply stupid to turn this into a numbers game. Next you'll be saying the Battle of Gettysburg was a mass shooting.
 
Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Yes. It's not what the standard definition includes and makes the numbers seem a lot bigger. We shouldn't belittle these incidents, they still shouldn't have happened, but it's a bad idea to change definitions to match your numbers.

I know it makes it inconvenient for a pro-gun argument, but is there an actual reason why we should not include those incidents in the mass shooting definition? It seems to me there were a number of people shot in a single incident. Whether or not they died doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Please explain why it is different because they actually got deaths.

Why stop there, why not include every time they shot at 4 people and missed completely?

If you could get stats on that i would say it should be included in mass shooting data.

Or if they just think about shooting at 4 people?

There is a huge difference between thinking and doing and that just got way absurd.

There's no limit to how we could inflate the numbers to match whatever we want. We should use the official definition if we're going to debate with statistics.

It is not like I am saying add people who eat cupcakes to their numbers. This is a person who shot at a mass of people and shot a mass of bullets. they have shot 4 people with 4 bullets at least. That could easily be defined as a mass shooting. We are saying shooting here which is not saying killing so yes those numbers should be included because it would be more accurate. If you wanted to focus on death you would say mass killing. Mass shooting implies wounds are in there.


Why should we skew the numbers up? I personally think just 4 is too few, and would like a new definition linked to population density. Killing 4 people in a city is practically normal these days, where killing even one or two people in an Amish town would be earth shaking. The issue is that "mass shooting" should hold a real meaning, or it'll be watered down and become a cliche. When you overemphasize a problem, people start to ignore it.

Ultimately the only reason to emphasize the mass shootings is to give gun-grabbers a strangle hold on law-abiding citizens, so I think it's doubly dangerous to skew those numbers up. Mass shootings are statistically over represented in gun free zones and gun controlled counties; It's simply not as cut and dry as Reddit or gun-grabbers would like us to believe.

On a personal note, it's strange that you didn't realize how much violence there is around you. According to the cdc, there were 16,259 homicides in America during 2010. If that number is even remotely accurate for today, an American is murdered every 30 minutes. It happens and we need to deal with it, but we need to use statistics to reduce crime; overemphasizing this crime could quite literally be the cause of it, in one way or another.

Wow, the fail is just epic. Oh it is not fair when i look at all the times people got hit with bullets but did not die. It would be something if that number wasn't so friggen large. That is once a day a person runs around and shoots 4 people somewhere in the country. Whatever you want to call it, that statistic is amazingly bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom