In any discussion you have to have a frame of reference, define the terms, that's what language is all about otherwise I'am talking about apple's you are talking about oranges without the possibility of communication. Sociological factors are the root of the problem. Fifty years ago semi auto surplus military weapons were cheep, abundant, and very easy to acquire and mass shooting were very rare. We are swimming in a sea of information with no emphasis on critical thinking . Its very easy to find all manner of information that will support, reinforce ANY idea we care to have , you always find what you are looking for, if not the real article a reason or excuse that will satisfy our held opinions. The result is any "idea" has as much merit as it has popular appeal. What has changed? Then if you had the opinion that something like a "zombie apocalypse" was possible, that a reasonable explanation for a missing air liner was alien abduction , that you could change your gender you would rightfully be considered delusional and be treated as such. Our society is becoming less and less stable.

I always enjoy reading your post, I respect your knowledge and admire your goals in helping others to protect themselves. But I have to tell you regardless of the definition of "mass murder", the problem, and I'm speaking here about young men committing mass murders, as I see it, stems from the lack of parental guidance, or, breakdown of family values. You do not need a search warrant to inspect your child's bedroom. If that were done Columbine would never have happened. Like so many others, my wife (now deceased) and I busted our butts to put our 2 children through college and give them a head start in life, all the while giving good examples of living a moral life. IMHO, many parents today need to re-prioritize their lifestyle and focus on their children rather than accumulating more "stuff". "You preach a better sermon with your life than you do with your lips".

No position
 

I do have a gun, but I do not take one position or another on firearms. There is no doubt in the United States we have a problem with mass shootings. Now one side wants to stop the sales of semiautomatics and the other side stands for the right to bear arms and to weed out the mentally ill. I would agree with the right to bear arms, except there is no way to know who is not fit to own a weapon. There is one more problem, yesterday here in Florida and 18-year-old shot and killed his 17-year-old friend by accident. There are too many of these incidents like this every year.

The media, in my opinion, is controlling the narrative and therefore public opinion. Because a lack of a proper definition of a mass shooting, those who are keeping track with databases count every shooting where 3 people are shot and the circumstance doesn't matter.

1. A couple of days ago four teen agers at Cutler Manor Apartments in Miami were shot in a drive-by shooting. Authorities think the shooter(s) were trying to shoot a teen and also struck three other teen agers. None died and all were treated at the hospital. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting. Barely a blip in the news. Four inured.

2. 3 days ago in Fairbanks, Alaska a 15 year old boy shot and killed three of his siblings 5, 8, and 17 and killed himself. Murder suicide. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting.Barely a blip in the news. Four dead

3. The Greenwood Mall shooter killed three people and wounded one. A young girl also was injured by shrapnel. The media frenzy was and is still off the charts.

All three of these events are listed in the databases that track mass shootings. In my opinion only #3 should be considered a mass shooting. The motives are very different, the planning is very different. The method of shootings were very different.

In #1 and #2 the victims are known to the shooter, they were targeted because of who they were to the shooter and shot with handguns. There was something wrong in the relationship and motive. #3 was purely indiscriminate with the purpose of shooting as many strangers as possible. The planning was very different.

These shootings are not equal and should not be counted to artificially escalate numbers to instill fear in the public and drive a narrative that a certain type of weapon should be removed from the entire population.

I don't think so ...
 

When I first read the title of this thread, my initial thought was 'I don't think so.'

Now, having read two pages of comments on the subject, my thought is 'I don't think so.'

Agreed! Guns harm no one, it’s the person with the Gun and the intent to cause harm. Your analogy is spot on!

Thank you

I see 2 major reasons, among many others. Drugs, mostly legal prescribed drugs to control our kids. Hollywood, always killing people. Just watch Mayans on FX. They kill many people every show.

Exactly. A strong family unit makes a huge difference.

Attempting to set a definition that everyone can agree on is not bias. It is nothing more than plain common sense. How can there be a discussion if everyone has their own definition of what is being discussed?

Why not? The prerequisite of having an honest conversation is to actually be honest. There are so many flaws in the national conversation regarding mass shootings that I fear we will never solve the problem, merely putting bandaids on a severed limb will not save the life. Misdirecting the conversation will not solve mass shootings. We have a lot of very smart people in our society and nobody seems to actually be trying to understand the problem. Where is the expert team of psychologists and forensic experts dismantling the events to determine why the event happened in the first place and therefore create a plan to address it?

Mass shootings
 

So very very well stated but so against the reigning authority.

The above post is an excellent definition of the problem with this entire discussion. As an attorney friend of mine used to say; "everyone is entitled to their own opinion. NO one is entitled to their own facts". When people cherry-pick data in order to support agendae, whatever their particular agenda might be, you don't get a reasoned debate. You get, essentially, chaos.

The example above is merely one of several that point out the fundamental dishonesty of this debate, as I've seen it, over the years. Others include:

1. Counting the perpetrator, if he or she is killed in the process, as a "victim". The logic of doing that escapes me. All it does, is pad the number of total victims.

2. The vast majority of these killings are done, not with AR - style rifles, but with HANDGUNS. Yet the proponents of stricter controls on guns lump those numbers into their argument in favor of banning AR - style rifles when logic dictates that, considering that handguns kill far more, they SHOULD be out to ban handguns. But they're not. The inescapable conclusion is that, even if all semi-auto rifles were somehow made to vanish tomorrow, it would decrease the number of these deaths by maybe 1/4, if that. Again, the logic of that escapes me.

3. Study after study indicates that many (most?) of these AR-15 - toting macho killer types are COPYCATS. They see the notoriety that previous shooters have gained with their bada$$ guns that everybody hates and decide to try for an even greater negative splash. So they buy, borrow or steal an AR-15 and go to work. Numbers are all over the board but I've seen those numbers at anywhere from 40% to 75% or more. What would the result be if, instead of splashing the gory details on every medium possible, these shootings were reported about the way we report stock-market numbers? The INFORMATION would still be out there, but the incentive for copycat would not be. We could do that tomorrow, and by so doing save many more lives than banning AR - style rifles, but we don't. And nobody has yet come up with a rational explanation why we don't. For the third time, the logic of that escapes me.

4. The terminology used is part of the problem. Picture in your mind two media stories of (say) a retiring governor. Every word in the two stories are identical. Punctuation is identical. They're mirror images of one another EXCEPT in how they describe the retiring governor. The first story describes him as an "venerable statesman", the second as an "aging politician". I don't know about most people but the mental image of the retiring governor that I'd get from story #1 would be along the lines of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. Remember, the INFORMATION we got from the story is precisely the same, but the MENTAL IMAGE, and thus our sense of the person in question, is decidedly different. The debates over the killings have precisely the same flaw, in my opinion. We get gory (often wildly exaggerated) details about the damage done to the victims. The fact that the victims are dead, in some of those stories seems almost incidental. The GORE is what is emphasized. Again, the logic of that escapes me.

CAN we have a reasoned debate on the subject of these mass killings? Well, we can try, and I certainly hope we can succeed. But that can ONLY happen if all parties involved forego the emotion and stick to the pertinent facts. And so far, that has not happened.

To answer your question... as of June there were 337 mass shootings, 387 dead, 1405 wounded.

I don’t make a lot of posts, but I read everything on a thread that interests me.
Your comments are intelligent, non-inflammatory, to the point and clearly logical. You write in a calm tone even if countered with rude remarks and incendiary language.
Thank you for the most pleasurable and consistent debate on a topic that I’ve ever read in this forum.
I’m glad that you do what you do, but can’t help think that your talents are needed in leadership above your current positions.
We need more truth and logic in our discussions rather than quick, knee-jerk retorts that have no effective problem-solving ideas.