How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really?

townpete

Corn Field
May 30, 2008
4,654
3,740
NYTimes pours cold water on that false claim of 300 mass shootings so far in 2015
 
At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.

What explains the vastly different count? The answer is that there is no official definition for “mass shooting.” Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shooting on a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.

.
.
.
.
 
The statistics now being highlighted in the news come primarily from shootingtracker.com, a website built by members of a Reddit forum supporting gun control called GunsAreCool. That site aggregates news stories about shooting incidents — of any kind — in which four or more people are reported to have been either injured or killed.
 
It’s not clear why the Redditors use this much broader criteria. The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.”
 
It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Media lies.
 
 
The San Bernardino shooting is the 355th mass shooting this year, according to a mass shooting tracker maintained by the Guns Are Cool subreddit. The Reddit tracker defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire.
 
Which brings us to the question: Have there actually been 355 mass shootings in the United States? Using the FBI’s definition, there have only been 41 mass shootings in the U.S. so far in 2015. The FBI’s definition is the one that’s more accepted by law enforcement. The Post admitted this distinction in its story, yet still chose to trumpet the 355 number.
http://rare.us/story/no-there-havent-been-355-mass-shootings-this-year/?utm_source=HermanCain&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Partnership
 
eolesen said:
Sure, focus on "mass shootings" but hey, let's ignore the fact that gun controlled Chicago has seen over 2700 shootings year to date, and over 450 homicides:

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides
 
townpete said:
NYTimes pours cold water on that false claim of 300 mass shootings so far in 2015
 
At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.

What explains the vastly different count? The answer is that there is no official definition for “mass shooting.” Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shooting on a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.

.
.
.
.
 
The statistics now being highlighted in the news come primarily from shootingtracker.com, a website built by members of a Reddit forum supporting gun control called GunsAreCool. That site aggregates news stories about shooting incidents — of any kind — in which four or more people are reported to have been either injured or killed.
 
It’s not clear why the Redditors use this much broader criteria. The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.”
 
It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Why not take a look at how many mass shootings Mother Jone's reports....
 
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9849390/mass-shootings-count
 
townpete said:
 
 

 
Sounds more plausible then the phony 300+ numbers others are reporting.
 
There have been at least 73 in the last three decades—and most of the killers got their guns legally.

 
 

But it's from Mother Jones.....that lefty liberal rag that prints NO facts....right?
 
KCFlyer said:
 
But it's from Mother Jones.....that lefty liberal rag that prints NO facts....right?
 
I know, even im shocked by their one-off moment of clarity. 
 
Im sure a lot of liberals head exploded on that one.
 
lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Way more than incidents of transportation industry employees using illegal drugs at work, but a few sensational headlines were enough to scare the public into demanding the government "do something" to make them (feel...) safe.

That something is of course pre-employment and Random drug testing. Totally without probable cause, or even suspicion, evidence of wrong-doing, search warrants, or any form of due process hundreds of thousands of American Citizens' 4th Amendment Rights are violated, and the courts with the public's support apsay that it is all ok because the public's right to (feel...) safe overrides the individuals' rights to be secure in their person against unreasonable search and seizure.

With that as background, why are the same law-and-order folks not calling for PrePurchase and Random Psychological Testing of gun owners?

The "no restrictions Obama is after my guns" crowd has pretty universally adopted the position that the mass shootings, however many there are that fit whatever description, are the works of the mentally unstable and psychologically damaged (At least, that is the story when the shooters are white and Christian...)

It would be perfectly consistent then to require Pre Purchase and Random Psychological Testing of gun owners. Skills and knowledge testing would also be consistent with accepted and nearly universally desired and supported licensing requirements for nearly everything else. Your barber is educated tested and licensed. So is the staff at the local nail shop. Drivers and car ownership is obvious. Hunters and boaters too.

Why not the same level of care and caution for gun owners?

Yes, I own a few.

Just bought another a few days ago.
 
Ifly2 said:
Way more than incidents of transportation industry employees using illegal drugs at work, but a few sensational headlines were enough to scare the public into demanding the government "do something" to make them (feel...) safe.

That something is of course pre-employment and Random drug testing. Totally without probable cause, or even suspicion, evidence of wrong-doing, search warrants, or any form of due process hundreds of thousands of American Citizens' 4th Amendment Rights are violated, and the courts with the public's support apsay that it is all ok because the public's right to (feel...) safe overrides the individuals' rights to be secure in their person against unreasonable search and seizure.

With that as background, why are the same law-and-order folks not calling for PrePurchase and Random Psychological Testing of gun owners?

The "no restrictions Obama is after my guns" crowd has pretty universally adopted the position that the mass shootings, however many there are that fit whatever description, are the works of the mentally unstable and psychologically damaged (At least, that is the story when the shooters are white and Christian...)

It would be perfectly consistent then to require Pre Purchase and Random Psychological Testing of gun owners. Skills and knowledge testing would also be consistent with accepted and nearly universally desired and supported licensing requirements for nearly everything else. Your barber is educated tested and licensed. So is the staff at the local nail shop. Drivers and car ownership is obvious. Hunters and boaters too.

Why not the same level of care and caution for gun owners?

Yes, I own a few.

Just bought another a few days ago.
 
Dumb, just plain dumb.
 
Make it harder for law abiding majority of gun owners.
 
Law breakers are not going to care one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I don't think I said it was a good idea

I think I said it would be consistent with established and widely supported practice.

If the law and order types on the right and the fearful types on the left were honest, they would either be against the violation of some peoples' 4th Amendment Rights, or support reasonable knowledge requirements, skills testing, licensing and random psych tests for gun owners.

The fact that some do not follow the laws does not mean that we should not have any, except to the Radical Right when it comes to guns.

If you think that laws don't do any good, then you should support abolishing all of them.

Every single last one.

After all, as you say, "Law breakers are not going to care one way or the other"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Typical liberal
 
Ifly2 said:
I don't think I said it was a good idea

I think I said it would be consistent with established and widely supported practice.

If the law and order types on the right and the fearful types on the left were honest, they would either be against the violation of some peoples' 4th Amendment Rights, or support reasonable knowledge requirements, skills testing, licensing and random psych tests for gun owners.

The fact that some do not follow the laws does not mean that we should not have any, except to the Radical Right when it comes to guns.

If you think that laws don't do any good, then you should support abolishing all of them.

Every single last one.

After all, as you say, "Law breakers are not going to care one way or the other"
 
Typical LWNJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person