Scientists studied what puts cities at risk of mass shootings — here’s what they found

[TU Curmudgeon]

From Global News

Scientists studied what puts cities at risk of mass shootings — here’s what they found
​

Whether or not massacres — like the recent shooting at a California bar, which killed a dozen people — can be traced back to specific causes has long been up for debate.

A group of researchers from the University of Toledo have compiled a study that claims to identify the common characteristics of communities where mass shootings are likely to occur and potentially identify those that are at risk.

“It’s multifactorial. It’s about how economically and socially healthy your community is, it’s about the laws that the people in your community have agreed to live by, it’s about successful enforcement of those laws and it’s about mental health services,” explained Dr. Stephen Markowiak of the University of Toledo Health Center, who led the study.

On Wednesday, a gunman opened fire at a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., killing a total of 13 people, including himself. It was later discovered that the gunman suffered from mental health issues as well as post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in the U.S. military.

The report, which looks at 155 mass shootings across the U.S ...

COMMENT:-

This report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "PRO-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by gun control and would be completely eliminated if every American was armed 24 hours per day.

On the other hand this report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "ANTI-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by any American having any access to guns at all.

The odds that this report is actually going to get the people involved in "The Great American Gun Debate" to take a look at WHY some people feel that it is an acceptable course of action to go out and slaughter others over trivial matters (with which the dead had no connection) are - roughly - as high as the odds that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America.

PS - You do know that it is, at least theoretically, possible for Barack Obama to be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America, don't you?

How is that possible?

Because there is a potential for there to be more than one person in the United States of America whose name is "Barack Obama".
​

 

[apdst]

From Global News

Scientists studied what puts cities at risk of mass shootings — here’s what they found
​

Whether or not massacres — like the recent shooting at a California bar, which killed a dozen people — can be traced back to specific causes has long been up for debate.

A group of researchers from the University of Toledo have compiled a study that claims to identify the common characteristics of communities where mass shootings are likely to occur and potentially identify those that are at risk.

“It’s multifactorial. It’s about how economically and socially healthy your community is, it’s about the laws that the people in your community have agreed to live by, it’s about successful enforcement of those laws and it’s about mental health services,” explained Dr. Stephen Markowiak of the University of Toledo Health Center, who led the study.

On Wednesday, a gunman opened fire at a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., killing a total of 13 people, including himself. It was later discovered that the gunman suffered from mental health issues as well as post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in the U.S. military.

The report, which looks at 155 mass shootings across the U.S ...

COMMENT:-

This report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "PRO-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by gun control and would be completely eliminated if every American was armed 24 hours per day.

On the other hand this report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "ANTI-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by any American having any access to guns at all.

The odds that this report is actually going to get the people involved in "The Great American Gun Debate" to take a look at WHY some people feel that it is an acceptable course of action to go out and slaughter others over trivial matters (with which the dead had no connection) are - roughly - as high as the odds that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America.

PS - You do know that it is, at least theoretically, possible for Barack Obama to be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America, don't you?

How is that possible?

Because there is a potential for there to be more than one person in the United States of America whose name is "Barack Obama".
​

When did this happen?

It was later discovered that the gunman suffered from mental health issues as well as post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in the U.S. military.

 

[Bullseye]

From Global News

Scientists studied what puts cities at risk of mass shootings — here’s what they found
​

Whether or not massacres — like the recent shooting at a California bar, which killed a dozen people — can be traced back to specific causes has long been up for debate.

A group of researchers from the University of Toledo have compiled a study that claims to identify the common characteristics of communities where mass shootings are likely to occur and potentially identify those that are at risk.

“It’s multifactorial. It’s about how economically and socially healthy your community is, it’s about the laws that the people in your community have agreed to live by, it’s about successful enforcement of those laws and it’s about mental health services,” explained Dr. Stephen Markowiak of the University of Toledo Health Center, who led the study.

On Wednesday, a gunman opened fire at a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., killing a total of 13 people, including himself. It was later discovered that the gunman suffered from mental health issues as well as post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in the U.S. military.

The report, which looks at 155 mass shootings across the U.S ...

COMMENT:-

This report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "PRO-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by gun control and would be completely eliminated if every American was armed 24 hours per day.

On the other hand this report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "ANTI-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by any American having any access to guns at all.

The odds that this report is actually going to get the people involved in "The Great American Gun Debate" to take a look at WHY some people feel that it is an acceptable course of action to go out and slaughter others over trivial matters (with which the dead had no connection) are - roughly - as high as the odds that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America.

PS - You do know that it is, at least theoretically, possible for Barack Obama to be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America, don't you?

How is that possible?

Because there is a potential for there to be more than one person in the United States of America whose name is "Barack Obama".
​

First off, blathering on and on about what "pro-gun nuts" will "probably" say isn't the way to start any kind of productive discussion. Your bull**** about what they'll "probably say" poisons the well from the start.



Second the study's definition of "mass shooting" is far too generic to have any meaning. If you just count every time two or more people are injured or killed you include gang violence, lunatics like the LV shooter, the 1000 oaks nut jobs, bar fights that get out of control and even party crasher violence escalating. Each of those types has a different structure and atmosphere to it.
r
Incomprehensible, irrational behavior has different origins and roots than fights that get out of control, or domestic violence escalating, or gang turf battles, or bar fights, or party crasher.

 

[trouble13]

From Global News

Scientists studied what puts cities at risk of mass shootings — here’s what they found
​

Whether or not massacres — like the recent shooting at a California bar, which killed a dozen people — can be traced back to specific causes has long been up for debate.

A group of researchers from the University of Toledo have compiled a study that claims to identify the common characteristics of communities where mass shootings are likely to occur and potentially identify those that are at risk.

“It’s multifactorial. It’s about how economically and socially healthy your community is, it’s about the laws that the people in your community have agreed to live by, it’s about successful enforcement of those laws and it’s about mental health services,” explained Dr. Stephen Markowiak of the University of Toledo Health Center, who led the study.

On Wednesday, a gunman opened fire at a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., killing a total of 13 people, including himself. It was later discovered that the gunman suffered from mental health issues as well as post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in the U.S. military.

The report, which looks at 155 mass shootings across the U.S ...

COMMENT:-

This report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "PRO-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by gun control and would be completely eliminated if every American was armed 24 hours per day.

On the other hand this report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "ANTI-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by any American having any access to guns at all.

The odds that this report is actually going to get the people involved in "The Great American Gun Debate" to take a look at WHY some people feel that it is an acceptable course of action to go out and slaughter others over trivial matters (with which the dead had no connection) are - roughly - as high as the odds that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America.

PS - You do know that it is, at least theoretically, possible for Barack Obama to be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America, don't you?

How is that possible?

Because there is a potential for there to be more than one person in the United States of America whose name is "Barack Obama".
​

So when and where is the next shooting going to take place? We should warn them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When did this happen?

As usual, your question is impossible to relate - logically - to either the cited article or to my comment on the cited article.

Would you like to take another try at it - this time in coherent English that actually gives some clue as to what you are asking?

Thanks.

PS - Don't expect a reply today as I'm about to go and do something that the President of the United States of America appears to be incapable of doing - paying respects (when the weather is inclement) to those who died defending freedom.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

First off, blathering on and on about what "pro-gun nuts" will "probably" say isn't the way to start any kind of productive discussion. Your bull**** about what they'll "probably say" poisons the well from the start.

Gosh, I guess that you didn't get to the second sentence where I had such kind words for the "ANTI-Gun Nuts".

I also guess that you didn't notice that the common factor between "PRO-Gun Nuts" and "ANTI-Gun Nuts" is the term "Nuts".

I also guess that you didn't notice that while there are NORMAL people who tend towards less restrictive measures on gun ownership as well as NORMAL people who tend toward more restrictive measures on gun ownership it's the raving loonie extremists on BOTH sides that are preventing any rational dialogue.

Second the study's definition of "mass shooting" is far too generic to have any meaning. If you just count every time two or more people are injured or killed you include gang violence, lunatics like the LV shooter, the 1000 oaks nut jobs, bar fights that get out of control and even party crasher violence escalating. Each of those types has a different structure and atmosphere to it.

You have a very valid point, except for one incredibly minor detail, you didn't read the

This study defined mass shootings as those with four or more fatalities, excluding those with a clear motive, such as robbery or gang-related activities.
(emphasis added)
​

bit.

Incomprehensible, irrational behavior has different origins and roots than fights that get out of control, or domestic violence escalating, or gang turf battles, or bar fights, or party crasher.

True, but it IS possible to study the incidents on a geographic basis to see if there are nodal points and then to examine any nodal points to see if those nodal points have any demographic similarities.

BTW, since your comment definitely falls into the "complete dismissal of the study on spurious grounds" category, would you let me know if you fall into the "PRO-Gun Nut" portion or the "ANTI-Gun Nut" portion of the "Nut" category.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So when and where is the next shooting going to take place? We should warn them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Since no such claim was stated, I'll just put your comment down in the "I really don't want to think about WHY these things happen (because i know that, if I do, I'll have to abandon my belief that America is perfect.)." category.

 

[Mason66]

From Global News

Scientists studied what puts cities at risk of mass shootings — here’s what they found
​

Whether or not massacres — like the recent shooting at a California bar, which killed a dozen people — can be traced back to specific causes has long been up for debate.

A group of researchers from the University of Toledo have compiled a study that claims to identify the common characteristics of communities where mass shootings are likely to occur and potentially identify those that are at risk.

“It’s multifactorial. It’s about how economically and socially healthy your community is, it’s about the laws that the people in your community have agreed to live by, it’s about successful enforcement of those laws and it’s about mental health services,” explained Dr. Stephen Markowiak of the University of Toledo Health Center, who led the study.

On Wednesday, a gunman opened fire at a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., killing a total of 13 people, including himself. It was later discovered that the gunman suffered from mental health issues as well as post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in the U.S. military.

The report, which looks at 155 mass shootings across the U.S ...

COMMENT:-

This report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "PRO-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by gun control and would be completely eliminated if every American was armed 24 hours per day.

On the other hand this report is likely going to be totally dismissed by the "ANTI-Gun Nuts" on the basis that it doesn't prove that mass shootings are caused solely by any American having any access to guns at all.

The odds that this report is actually going to get the people involved in "The Great American Gun Debate" to take a look at WHY some people feel that it is an acceptable course of action to go out and slaughter others over trivial matters (with which the dead had no connection) are - roughly - as high as the odds that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America.

PS - You do know that it is, at least theoretically, possible for Barack Obama to be inaugurated as the next president of the United States of America, don't you?

How is that possible?

Because there is a potential for there to be more than one person in the United States of America whose name is "Barack Obama".
​

If any of this were true, there would be multiple mass shooting per area, right?

Why is there only one shooting then no other after that?

 

[apdst]

As usual, your question is impossible to relate - logically - to either the cited article or to my comment on the cited article.

Would you like to take another try at it - this time in coherent English that actually gives some clue as to what you are asking?

Thanks.

PS - Don't expect a reply today as I'm about to go and do something that the President of the United States of America appears to be incapable of doing - paying respects (when the weather is inclement) to those who died defending freedom.

Because it isn't true.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If any of this were true, there would be multiple mass shooting per area, right?

If you have several locations with similar demographics and each of them has only one mass shooting, then there ARE "multiple mass shootings per demographic area".

Why is there only one shooting then no other after that?

Because you don't understand the basics of epidemiology.

Let me give you an example (which I am going to make up on the fly):

1. The population is made up of 90% NON-redheads and 10% redheads.
2. 9% of the population will catch "Madeup's Disease".
3. A person only catches "Madeup's Disease" once.
4. 50% of the people who catch "Madeup's Disease" are redheads.
5. Demographically "Madeup's Disease" is more prevalent in redheads (45% will catch it) than it is in NON-redheads (4.945% will catch it).
6. The fact that an individual redhead only catches "Madeup"s Disease" only once is totally irrelevant.

Can you follow that?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Because it isn't true.

As usual, your question is impossible to relate - logically - to either the cited article or to my comment on the cited article.

Would you like to take another try at it - this time in coherent English that actually gives some clue as to what you are asking?

Thanks.

BTW, I did manage to find time today to remember, in addition to the 105,000+ (adjusted for national population that approximates 1,050,000+ as an American equivalent) Canadian war dead, the 617,392+ American war dead (not, of course, individually) which Mr. Trump didn't seem to have the time to do so I made up for him not wanting to go out in the rain.

Don't bother to thank me, it's just something that any aware and honourable person would have done - as I am sure that you did too.

 

[apdst]

As usual, your question is impossible to relate - logically - to either the cited article or to my comment on the cited article.

Would you like to take another try at it - this time in coherent English that actually gives some clue as to what you are asking?

Thanks.

BTW, I did manage to find time today to remember, in addition to the 105,000+ (adjusted for national population that approximates 1,050,000+ as an American equivalent) Canadian war dead, the 617,392+ American war dead (not, of course, individually) which Mr. Trump didn't seem to have the time to do so I made up for him not wanting to go out in the rain.

Don't bother to thank me, it's just something that any aware and honourable person would have done - as I am sure that you did too.

Oh, I wasn't. I don't owe you a ****ing thing.

Truly honorable people remember the living and the lost every day.

That you could spare a few minutes a year to do so, you're welcome.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh, I wasn't. I don't owe you a ****ing thing.

As usual, your question is impossible to relate - logically - to either the cited article or to my comment on the cited article.

Would you like to take another try at it - this time in coherent English that actually gives some clue as to what you are asking?

Thanks.

Truly honorable people remember the living and the lost every day.

I agree, but where does that leave someone who can't bring themselves to go out to a ceremony that does remember the fallen because it is raining?

Oh, I know "That's DIFFERENT!!!".

That you could spare a few minutes a year to do so, you're welcome.

Obviously Mr. Trump couldn't.

PS - FYI, I "wear the poppy" year round.

PPS - What did you do on 11 NOV to "remember the fallen"? Did you actually participate in the ceremonies, did you just watch, did you simply go down to the nearest FVW or AL post and have a beer, or what?

 

[apdst]

As usual, your question is impossible to relate - logically - to either the cited article or to my comment on the cited article.

Would you like to take another try at it - this time in coherent English that actually gives some clue as to what you are asking?

Thanks.



I agree, but where does that leave someone who can't bring themselves to go out to a ceremony that does remember the fallen because it is raining?

Oh, I know "That's DIFFERENT!!!".



Obviously Mr. Trump couldn't.

PS - FYI, I "wear the poppy" year round.

PPS - What did you do on 11 NOV to "remember the fallen"? Did you actually participate in the ceremonies, did you just watch, did you simply go down to the nearest FVW or AL post and have a beer, or what?

Suuuure you do!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Suuuure you do!

As usual, your question is impossible to relate - logically - to either the cited article or to my comment on the cited article.

Would you like to take another try at it - this time in coherent English that actually gives some clue as to what you are asking?

Thanks.

PS - What DID you do on 11 NOV to "remember the fallen"? Did you actually participate in the ceremonies, did you just watch, did you simply go down to the nearest FVW or AL post and have a beer, or what?