Today's mass shooting in the US

[fredwi]

Sadly, not a joke.

Sadly not

I do not follow closely but until there is a mass of protests across the country to force the change nothing will happen as either party will just say they will change the law to get back in power

Some how they need to change the mind set of guns and the need for them….

 

[Freakbro]

The thing is polls show the majority of the public are in favour of some more gun regulation. It's only the vocal minority and mainly lobbyists money that maintain the status quo.

 

[fredwi]

I guess as well there is a big revenue to be made in that market

 

[fez]

Some more gun regulation won't stop mass shootings unless they go a hell of a long way towards banning guns.

 

[Rroff]

Some more gun regulation won't stop mass shootings unless they go a hell of a long way towards banning guns.

No but some changes would massively reduce the chances of them happening and other changes would hugely reduce the ability to kill quickly and efficiently in the opening moments which is typically where most deaths happen.

Compared to people's perceptions there are actually quite a few owners of firearms in the UK but some of the measures like the limits on owning semi-automatic never mind automatic go a long way to preventing incidents, most of the recent(ish) ones, 2010s onward, have involved shotguns which personally I'd say need to come inline with rifle regulations.

Though some of the issues involved in why it is so bad in the US goes beyond firearms.

 

[fez]

No but some changes would massively reduce the chances of them happening and other changes would hugely reduce the ability to kill quickly and efficiently in the opening moments which is typically where most deaths happen.

Oh some changes could make a large difference but what we would consider "small", the Americans would consider massive. As with everything now, its hugely politicised and even the democrats don't dare treat too heavily when it comes to gun legislation.

Compared to people's perceptions there are actually quite a few owners of firearms in the UK but some of the measures like the limits on owning semi-automatic never mind automatic go a long way to preventing incidents, most of the recent(ish) ones, 2010s onward, have involved shotguns which personally I'd say need to come inline with rifle regulations.

Though some of the issues involved in why it is so bad in the US goes beyond firearms.

Its tiny compared to places like the US and the kind of guns are completely different outside of the criminal element. You don't find many farmers packing an AR15. They are largely a utility in the UK rather than some sad little fantasy of overweight men who think they are John Wayne in the wild west ready to defend their freedoms.

 

[StriderX]

I'd love to know whether there's a correlation between the ridiculous amount of gambling-based services available (from a young age through still-not regulated exploitative games to all the online gambling apps), people becoming financially destitute/addicted and wanting to take it out on everyone around them

 

[C Kent]

So the coward shot himself. On to the next one then I suppose. Same time next week?

There's already been a couple of mass shootings over the weekend - 2 dead and 18 wounded at one party in Tampa and another with 15 odd wounded in chicago. You won't hear about those though.

 

[StriderX]

There's already been a couple of mass shootings over the weekend - 2 dead and 18 wounded at one party in Tampa and another with 15 odd wounded in chicago. You won't hear about those though.

Well no why would we?

Florida and Chicago are both places that most people have written off as unsalvageable.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Well no why would we?

Florida and Chicago are both places that most people have written off as unsalvageable.

I see, so which states do you hold out hope for, and are salvageable? What makes them different from Florida and Chicago?

 

[StriderX]

I see, so which states do you hold out hope for, and are salvageable? What makes them different from Florida and Chicago?

Alaska is still mostly untouched by American hands, so probably that.

 

[C Kent]

Alaska is still mostly untouched by American hands, so probably that.

You might want to read up on Alaska before making such a bold claim.....

 

[VincentHanna]

There's already been a couple of mass shootings over the weekend - 2 dead and 18 wounded at one party in Tampa and another with 15 odd wounded in chicago. You won't hear about those though.

Officially they aren't considered mass shootings unless 3 or more people are killed - so no you probably won't hear much about them.

As opposed to 18 killed

 

[C Kent]

Officially they aren't considered mass shootings unless 3 or more people are killed - so no you probably won't hear much about them.

As opposed to 18 killed

Wrong, as usual

The fbi for example has the term mass shooting when one or more people are actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. The FBI doesnt have not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident. Which is where you are probably getting confused.

The likes of mother jones (lol) have a mass shooting as 3 or more deaths.

 

[VincentHanna]

Wrong, as usual

It varies:

Stanford University MSA Data Project: three or more persons shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time. Excluded are shootings associated with organized crime, gangs or drug wars.[13]
Mass Shooting Tracker: four or more persons shot in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time.[14][10]

Gun Violence Archive/Vox: four or more shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrators, at one location, at roughly the same time.[15][16]

Mother Jones: three or more shot and killed in one incident at a public place, excluding the perpetrators. This list excludes all shootings the organization considers to be "conventionally motivated" such as all gang violence and armed robberies.[8]
The Washington Post: four or more shot and killed in one incident at a public place, excluding the perpetrators.[7]

ABC News/FBI:[n 1] four or more shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrators, at one location, at roughly the same time.[17]

Congressional Research Service: four or more shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrators, at a public place, excluding gang-related killings and those done with a profit-motive.[18]

 

[Werewolf]

It varies:

It's almost like there is no official definition that makes it easy to compare what different people are talking about.

I can't imagine why that is, in much the same way I can't imagine why IIRC until fairly recently the likes of the CDC were not allowed to collect the same sort of stats on shootings that they do for pretty much every other cause of death or serious injury,

 

[C Kent]

Why people keep using mother jones as a citation source is baffling

 

[Werewolf]

Why people keep using mother jones as a citation source is baffling

Possibly because it is or was one of the few places to maintain the same methodology for a very long time.

IIRC there are several gaps in fairly important statistics in the US where the only people that have been even attempting to keep a continuous track of them have been newspapers or news organisations that were specifically interested in that sort of thing.
It's possibly a side effect of the NRA and republicans trying to make it as hard as possible for anything that might be used to limit the availability of guns to get government funding, be it record checks that aren't stuck in the 1950's, or statistics about the number of gun deaths done to a single reference standard over decades.

 

[C Kent]

Possibly because it is or was one of the few places to maintain the same methodology for a very long time.

IIRC there are several gaps in fairly important statistics in the US where the only people that have been even attempting to keep a continuous track of them have been newspapers or news organisations that were specifically interested in that sort of thing.
It's possibly a side effect of the NRA and republicans trying to make it as hard as possible for anything that might be used to limit the availability of guns to get government funding, be it record checks that aren't stuck in the 1950's, or statistics about the number of gun deaths done to a single reference standard over decades.

Yeah but that's the point, their 'data' is the very definition of cherry picked, its not remotely relevant as it ignores the vast majority of mass shootings.

 

[potatolord]

Yeah but that's the point, their 'data' is the very definition of cherry picked, its not remotely relevant as it ignores the vast majority of mass shootings.

You'd think it would be fairly straightforward to count up fatalities through firearm (with death cert showing homicide/ suicide/ accidental/ other).

Then count up hospital first admissions for firearms injuries.

Both recorded with time of incident (where known) and healthcare facility of attendance/ location of certification.

Set definitions- single shooting, multiple shooting types (breakdown as required- e.g. 2-3, 4-5 etc).

The fragmented, and private, nature of US healthcare and differences in state law probably makes that all rather difficult...