No, There Has Not Been a Mass Shooting Every Day This Year

@manored,

manored wrote:

the common sense definition of "a person with psychological problems walks into a place armed and kills a lot of people randomly".

what makes you think this ^ is a better definition?

I'd argue that your sense of common sense is just that - your sense of it.

1 Reply

@Lordyaswas,

Lordyaswas wrote:

If that is the case, I am mystified as to why four or more people being shot and injured in a single incident should not warrant a classification of mass shooting?

Because the term typically has meant a more significant event than that. It's really just that simple. It is a term meant to describe scope so scope matters.

If I shoot at at car and 4 people sustain minor wounds from flying glass it is nothing at all like a Sandy Hook or Columbine event so we should be able to have terms that distinguish between these very different beasts.

Similarly if a conventional weapon kills 50 people that is a horrible, horrible thing. Doesn't make it a Weapon of Mass Destruction though.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

It's not my definition, it's what the definition was for the FBI etc and what has typically been used to measure this problem. So when some forum users redefine it themselves (this arbitrary one-a-day statistic came out of reddit) it sounds like we suddenly have a huge problem compared to the past when in reality the increase is two orders of magnitude less dramatic.

And we need to be able to have terms to describe very different things. For example, if you count a situation where a couple of burglars are shot at when they enter a home as a mass shooting it conflates incredibly different scenarios and typically mass shooting has been reserved for incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook etc and it is useful to have ways to speak about such different incidents with differentiated labels.

I happen to favor gun control but I am just not one of the types of people who will accept any bullshit and equivocation in favor of an argument I generally favor.

There is plenty of basis upon which to argue for gun control without rendering more meaningless the term "mass shooting" to any shooting of more than 1 person. The statistic was redefined and quoted widely without many realizing that the goalposts have moved. That's intellectual dishonesty and I'm calling it out. I find it shameful that so many of my peers in politics are willing to spew bullshit just because it aligns with their overall political views.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

manored wrote:
the common sense definition of "a person with psychological problems walks into a place armed and kills a lot of people randomly".

what makes you think this ^ is a better definition?

I'd argue that your sense of common sense is just that - your sense of it.

I'm not arguing it is a better definition, but rather that it is a popular definition. It is what comes to people's minds when they hear the term "mass shooting". Estimating public opinion is always chancy. If you feel this estimation is wrong, feel free to argue against it.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Would you mind if I considered some gun nut walking out of his house into the street with his gun and blowing away a couple of people a mass shooting? Screw the FBI. They are wrong more than they are right.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I mean you can use whatever language you like, as can I in criticizing it.

I think killing two people is a vastly different type of event than what "mass shooting" traditionally refers to and think the distinction is important. And I think that calling anything more than 1 a "mass" anything is to render that word completely meaningless but if you do not see the value in having different terms to describe such different events then bully to you.

I think you are having a hard time separating your politics from basic logic about language should work but that is par for the course for most people.

0 Replies

@manored,

[quote="manored''] It is what comes to people's minds when they hear the term "mass shooting".
[/quote]

given just this thread, you can see there is a range of things that people think/believe are covered by mass shooting

1 Reply

I find it interesting that people quibble over the details of mass shootings in the US. In most civilised countries, it wouldn't matter who the perpetrators were, if they shot 4 or more people, regardless of the situation, injuries or fatalities, it would be a mass shooting.
And what I find most astounding is that, since 911 - that being a marker of sorts, is that the vast majority of victims of gun owner violence are females, usually killed in domestic situations. That this has not been even a ripple of concern in any way shape or form to the vast majority of Americans is sad.

2 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

In most civilised countries, it wouldn't matter who the perpetrators were, if they shot 4 or more people, regardless of the situation, injuries or fatalities, it would be a mass shooting.

Can you cite some examples of what you mean? From countries that define mass shootings differently?

Quote:

And what I find most astounding is that, since 911 - that being a marker of sorts, is that the vast majority of victims of gun owner violence are females, usually killed in domestic situations. That this has not been even a ripple of concern in any way shape or form to the vast majority of Americans is sad.

Sure, but it's frustrating to not be able to discuss a narrow issue within the gun control debate without people defaulting to their general gun control positions.

Nobody in this thread has said a single word against gun control. Not one.

1 Reply

My inclination is to call it a mass shooting if there is a strong element of randomness. Otherwise, it's simply premeditated murder. Not taking anything away from premeditated murder, you understand.

2 Replies

@roger,

I think the "random" is quite close to a valid way to differentiate the cases. Again, taking nothing away from other kinds of murder (silly that we need this disclaimer and even sillier that it does not have any effect on people just reverting to the general gun control debate) but walking in on your wife and her lover and shooting at them both and wounding them is a very different situation from walking into an abortion clinic (the selection of which is not truly "random" which is why I think this distinction is on the right track but imperfect) and killing 4 or more people.

To the one-track mind people in this thread: this says nothing against gun control. This says nothing to diminish any murder or any shooting. It simply seeks to have a way to describe very different situations.

Some places have regular murder problems but not much mass murder problems, they are different in nuance and should be able to be described differently.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

given just this thread, you can see there is a range of things that people think/believe are covered by mass shooting

We are questioning the definition on this thread, so its natural for people to scrutinize it and for opinions to them diverge. Its not an accurate portray of how people define the term, and in fact a few of us have only questioned definitions and not put forwards any in particular.

Ceili wrote:

I find it interesting that people quibble over the details of mass shootings in the US. In most civilized countries, it wouldn't matter who the perpetrators were, if they shot 4 or more people, regardless of the situation, injuries or fatalities, it would be a mass shooting.

I disagree. In Brazil, we do tend to use the same words for both events (which do not translate to mass shooting, I should note), but crimes where, say, organized criminals kill a bunch of their enemies, are treated differently from crimes where someone goes on a mass shooting for no logical reason.

Ceili wrote:

And what I find most astounding is that, since 911 - that being a marker of sorts, is that the vast majority of victims of gun owner violence are females, usually killed in domestic situations. That this has not been even a ripple of concern in any way shape or form to the vast majority of Americans is sad.

It is a subset of both domestic violence and gun violence. Why would people worry about it in this specific conflated way?

2 Replies

@roger,

Agreed. If it isnt a robbery or planned murder for financial benefit type of crime (and they tend to conserve bullets and casualties) then why isnt it a mass shooting if two or more are killed?

Mental illness and religious zeal have comparatively random targets and greater casualties compared to an organised crime.

Anyway, at the end of the day it is the press and their hype that have the final word with the public.

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

I disagree. In Brazil, we do tend to use the same words for both events (which do not translate to mass shooting, I should note), but crimes where, say, organized criminals kill a bunch of their enemies, are treated differently from crimes where someone goes on a mass shooting for no logical reason.

Yeah, you guys call those "american-style violence" or some such (I was living in Brazil when that guy entered the theater and shot a bunch of people, it was a kind of violence Brazil had rarely seen and they described it that way on the news several times).

The non-personal targeting (I think this is a better distinction than "random" because targeting an abortion clinic is not random but it is also not based on personal conflicts with the victims) is what I would use to differentiate the kind of killings, and for "mass" qualification I really do think 3-4 is a better line than merely "more than one" which renders "mass" meaningless.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Yeah, you guys call those "american-style violence" or some such (I was living in Brazil when that guy entered the theater and shot a bunch of people, it was a kind of violence Brazil had rarely seen and they described it that way on the news several times).

Indeed, there is usually comparisons to America because that's our public perception of where such things happen. Its far less common here. Other words used include "massacre", which means the same things in English, and "chacina", a synonymous word.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Canada has the lowest death rate by guns in the Americas, and ours would be shocking to most Europeans.
We had two shootings, two innocent men, in two different stores, 15 mins apart killed last night in my city. We are in shock. This is a mass shooting here. It made national news, because it's a big deal. Two men, new comers to this country, working in two convenience stores are dead. Two adults and a 13 yr old in custody, found at a 3rd store attempting it again and captured after a short road race.
This would be a local story, if it got any press at all in US. That's what I mean by civilized. It's shocking. Appalling.
4 is unbelievable.
It's a personal, a local thing. It's not a hard and fast example. But a reality, at least in my world.

1 Reply

@manored,

Is there any logic to killing people?
And yes, they would differentiate in Canada too. However, mass shooting is a pretty simple term. It's not like dissecting terrorism. Mass = Many. If someone shoots up a place, for the sake of statistics, is there really a difference? Many people are dead and if they didn't have the tools of mass destruction, it probably wouldn't have happened.
As for the breakdown is types of crimes... As a woman, it's a pretty big deal that the majority of victims are women and their children, not the daily mass shootings, because they're counted in that stat, but not, if as the concern of this thread is to be considered, for what it really is.

2 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

This is a mass shooting here. It made national news, because it's a big deal.

I am asking for a criminological definition of "mass shooting" in your country, not what constitutes a "big deal" in the media.

Does your country track statistics on this? And if so how do they define it to measure it?

I have said not a whit about what should be considered a "big deal" in this thread. I have made no value judgements on any of it.

I am merely debating ways to distinguish vastly different criminological aspects. For example I find this kind of Harvard study useful: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-rising-harvard

It would be meaningless given the random definitions people in this thread favor, it is seeking to measure a different thing than they want included and they want it included merely because they think that it helps their gun position debate.

That's silly, gun control make sense or does not make sense completely independent on what criteria we use to try to differentiate vastly different criminal acts.

Quote:

It made national news, because it's a big deal. Two men, new comers to this country, working in two convenience stores are dead. Two adults and a 13 yr old in custody, found at a 3rd store attempting it again and captured after a short road race.

All horrible things, nobody is disputing this. An appeal to emotion about this case, however, doesn't say much about the validity of the criteria used to distinguish quotidian murder from the rarer "mass murder" that has been increasing in America (while other kinds of murders decrease).

Why on earth do you gun control advocates (of which I am one) insist in taking such a nuanceless approach to this specific nuanced debate?

Quote:

This would be a local story, if it got any press at all in US. That's what I mean by civilized. It's shocking. Appalling.

We are not discussing how appalling something is, or how "civilized" your country is versus the US (I wouldn't use those words but agree with the general point that the US should be more like Canada on gun control) but whether it fits a criminological criteria. Incidentally your example DOES fit the FBI definition for mass shooting so it is another pointless point in this now largely pointless thread.

Quote:

4 is unbelievable.

I guess I can't have a thread about how to measure what "mass" is and this is just gonna be about what is believable or not.

What I wouldn't give to have a place to have intelligent and nuanced discussions, almost all of the responses in this thread from perfectly intelligent people who share the same political goal as I do are maddeningly thoughtless.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Mass = Many.

Many = ?

0 Replies

@manored,

Yeah, and incidentally you guys use "massacre" far earlier than Americans do.

For Brazilians a mass shooting is a massacre, and Americans have a higher criteria for it. Maybe that would be a useful thing for the thoughtless responders in this thread to consider:

What constitutes a "massacre"? Is it when 2 people die or more?

1 Reply

No, There Has Not Been a Mass Shooting Every Day This Year

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know