[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."

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.

[jswirs]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included

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".

[Blackbird45]

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.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Okay so let's establish that "Mass Shooting" is no fewer than 5 victims, at least one of them must be a stranger to the others, none of them should be undocumented immigrants, and none of them should be pregnant females.

That's still one person who shouldn't have had a firearm, having one, and using it to kill people. And THAT one person is the only "problem" that needs to be solved.

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.

[Quixote]

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.'

[me4vt]

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

[Bridget Staunton]

Thank you

[Bay Kid]

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.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jswirs

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".

Exactly. A strong family unit makes a huge difference.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by RVJim

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

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?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.'

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?

[Larchap49]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

I agree that a consistent definition of mass murder events needs to be set, and further that gang violence, although abhorrent, should not be included. This has nothing to do with the value of lives lost, but rather evidence shows that non gang related mass shootings are more widely reported by the media and for longer periods of time.Consider too that people on this board seem to invest more of their time posting on these sensationalized murders versus the weekly killings in Chicago, or the loss of 380 people per day from excessive alcohol per the CDC (link), or “necking it down” to the 32 alcohol related drunk driving deaths per day reported by the NHTSA (link)

Another thing that needs to be done is to define mental illness. Does it include people with little to no socialization skills? Does it include pure evil? How are these types of people treated or managed? Are we self aware enough to recognize that “Nintendo babysitters” may be a contributory cause to lack of socialization skills?

Why is it that we continue to hear after a tragic event that these mass shooters left social media posts, or told people about intended violence, prior to the shootings? What can be done to facilitate reporting?

It has been suggested that we take away “the prize” of attention that may be driving copycat killers. Why is this so hard to do?

The focus needs to be on identifying the underlying causes in OUR society that trigger these shooters and then try to fix those causes. The waters get muddied by those who would compare countries since no country operates in a vacuum and such comparisons ignore the differences in cultures and their effects on societal pressures.

Lastly, we need to go back to enforcing the law and holding people accountable for their actions. You choose to do the crime, then be prepared to do the time.

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

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

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.

[airstreamingypsy]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Of course it matters. Everyone is up in arms (forgive the pun) claiming that banning AR's will solve the problem when 77% of mass shootings are done by handguns, not AR's. How many mass murder events have happened so far in 2022? Everyone has a different answer to that. Why?

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

[Teemotay]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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?

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.