Charleston Church Massacre: Thug, Terrorism, Disturbed Loner?

There's some debate about how to define mass shootings. But using the definition many people operate under — shootings at a public place in which the shooter murdered four or more people, excluding domestic, gang, and drug violence — they appear to be getting more common, as the chart above from Mother Jones, based on an analysis from Harvard School of Public Health, shows.

But not everyone agrees with this definition. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, for example, defines mass shootings as any shooting in which at least four people were murdered. Under those terms, mass shootings don't appear to be increasing. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health call that definition too broad, since it catches domestic, gang, and drug-related shootings that aren't usually considered mass shootings in layman terms.

Using data from the Stanford Geospatial Center, which defines a mass shooting as an event in which someone shot three or more people, Vox's Soo Oh made this interactive map of mass shootings since the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School:

Quote:

There's some debate about how to define mass shootings. But using the definition many people operate under — shootings at a public place in which the shooter murdered four or more people, excluding domestic, gang, and drug violence — they appear to be getting more common, as the chart above from Mother Jones, based on an analysis from Harvard School of Public Health, shows.

But not everyone agrees with this definition. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, for example, defines mass shootings as any shooting in which at least four people were murdered. Under those terms, mass shootings don't appear to be increasing. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health call that definition too broad, since it catches domestic, gang, and drug-related shootings that aren't usually considered mass shootings in layman
terms.


Using data from the Stanford Geospatial Center, which defines a mass shooting as an event in which someone shot three or more people, Vox's Soo Oh made this interactive map of mass shootings since the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9030337/gun-violence-mass-shootings



Walters site does not up front at least define mass shootings, but clearly it is not one of the standard definitions since sometimes no one dies.

Like we see with the feminists use of the word rape there are political points to be had by redefining words and phrases to suit ones purpose. Bumping up the numbers one wants to see bumped is but one.

Walter gave us a link claiming that there have been 240 mass shootings this year that is using non standard definitions and so the fact that these people are making up their own definitions must be pointed out.

What you said totally side-steps the reality of what's happening. Sanders has been living what he says for 40 years. How can you possibly really think he's spent his life "saying what makes him the darling?" Being the left's darling has gotten him nowhere. Disagree with what he believes or what he says, but I think it's disingenuous to dismiss his entire, consistent life's work as lip service.

btw I was proud as hell of his performance at Netroots. Hillary was too afraid to show. The activists didn't create a space of silence for him to speak. He has said plenty since in environments where he had the floor. You won't find anyone of any party who can or will say what he did.

Take a look at his remarks at the SCLC. He's more forceful about racial equality than Obama.

https://berniesanders.com/remarks-senator-sanders-southern-christian-leadership-conference/

Nice to see you btw, snood

he always says whatever leftwing populist talking points that will make him the darling of the leftwing populists.

I'm not trying to twist your arm to support my candidate, just responding normally.

Wish you didn't see that as "fighting." If you're able to discuss it with me without being defensive or accusatory of my motives in responding, that'd be great. If you don't think it will work (and I can well understand that given our history), just stop addressing my posts - and I'll withdraw from addressing you.

I'm not mad by a speck. Don't want to devolve Just let me know.

Do you just want to fight, Lash?

OK.

You said this:

Quote:

Do you just want to fight, Lash?

That felt like it was out of the blue to me.

You also said somewhere that I was "defensive." I felt that these two comments by you were personal and unmerited. If we can leave stuff like this off and stick to the topic, I'd enjoy that.

Lash...short term memory. I only used the word defensive after you used it about me first. But, agreed - we'll try to stick to the topic. I might not 'enjoy' it, but it will definitely suck less.