at least 33 mass shootings so far?

[Koda]

But for statistical purposes, why does motive matter? In many cases, the motive can not be determined anyway (shooter offs himself, friends and family are baffled, or perpetrator(s) never apprehended, as in Chicago every weekend).

You cant solve a crime problem if you don't attack the motive.

The motive of the "mass shooters" has been well established by now, these are people who are blaming society at large for their insecurities, and taking out their rage on society.
The number killed makes no difference. If someone intends to mass shoot, but only gets 1 person injured because a bystander shoots them first... is that no longer a "mass shooting"? An arbitrary number doesn't make sense.

If we want to end mass shootings we need to address the causes of depression or mental instability associated with violent tendencies.

If you want to ban guns, inflate the incidences guns are used in horrific crimes of violence.

 

[Cavedweller]

You cant solve a crime problem if you don't attack the motive.

The motive of the "mass shooters" has been well established by now, these are people who are blaming society at large for their insecurities, and taking out their rage on society.
The number killed makes no difference. If someone intends to mass shoot, but only gets 1 person injured because a bystander shoots them first... is that no longer a "mass shooting"? An arbitrary number doesn't make sense.

If we want to end mass shootings we need to address the causes of depression or mental instability associated with violent tendencies.

If you want to ban guns, inflate the incidences guns are used in horrific crimes of violence.

So as I understand it, you would draw a distinction between the disturbed individual who attacks a school, church, shopping center, etc., and the inner city drive-by shooter who for whatever reason shoots up a house or a group of people, or someone who gets into an argument at a street party, "the club", or other venue and pulls a gun in an unpremeditated manner and starts blasting away. While the latter 2 are commonplace, the former are relatively rare.

 

[Koda]

So as I understand it, you would draw a distinction between the disturbed individual who attacks a school, church, shopping center, etc., and the inner city drive-by shooter who for whatever reason shoots up a house or a group of people, or someone who gets into an argument at a street party, "the club", or other venue and pulls a gun in an unpremeditated manner and starts blasting away. While the latter 2 are commonplace, the former are relatively rare.

Yes, the motivation is totally different.
Mass shootings are horrific high profile crimes, but are otherwise very rare and kill/injure way less people.
Criminal violence (drugs deals, gang hits, robberies etc.) are way more common an problematic and kill way more people. I disagree that they are unpremeditated.

 

[Cavedweller]

Yes, the motivation is totally different.
Mass shootings are horrific high profile crimes, but are otherwise very rare and kill/injure way less people.
Criminal violence (drugs deals, gang hits, robberies etc.) are way more common an problematic and kill way more people.

So, you would not call the drive-by shooter who kills 3 and wounds 8 a mass shooter, while you would call the troubled 16 y.o.who goes to a school and kills 2 but then eats a bullet when the cops show up a mass shooter because the press makes it a high profile story, while the former happens every day and gets no press attention. Is that correct?

I disagree that they are unpremeditated.

Well, not always, that's for sure. But sometimes they appear to be spontaneous and alcohol/anger fueled. I mean, who goes to a wedding party planning to get into a gunfight?

 

[Koda]

So, you would not call the drive-by shooter who kills 3 and wounds 8 a mass shooter, while you would call the troubled 16 y.o.who goes to a school and kills 2 but then eats a bullet when the cops show up a mass shooter because the press makes it a high profile story, while the former happens every day and gets no press attention. Is that correct?

Well, not always, that's for sure. But sometimes they appear to be spontaneous and alcohol/anger fueled. I mean, who goes to a wedding party planning to get into a gunfight?

Correct. the drive by shooter motive is a person or a group (gang) not society at large. The number shot or killed might be exactly who they targeted, or some might be just caught in the crossfire. But they are not mass shooting by design intent.

Alcohol brings out the true person inside. I might agree that being drunk might influence the persons inner motive to take action but someone shooting in an alcohol induced fit of rage is targeting someone. Not the same motivation as a true mass shooter.

 

[Cavedweller]

Correct. the drive by shooter motive is a person or a group (gang) not society at large. The number shot or killed might be exactly who they targeted, or some might be just caught in the crossfire. But they are not mass shooting by design intent.

Alcohol brings out the true person inside. I might agree that being drunk might influence the persons inner motive to take action but someone shooting in an alcohol induced fit of rage is targeting someone. Not the same motivation as a true mass shooter.

OK. Well, you have clearly articulated your position and I appreciate that. So, I think I understand what you consider a mass shooter. If you were creating a statistical category for the other guy who kills more than 4 in a drive-by, what would you call him if not "mass shooter"?

 

[Koda]

OK. Well, you have clearly articulated your position and I appreciate that. So, I think I understand what you consider a mass shooter. If you were creating a statistical category for the other guy who kills more than 4 in a drive-by, what would you call him if not "mass shooter"?

a drive by shooter, a murderer.

What about a guy who robs a store, shoots the clerk dead. A customer fights him and he shoots the customer dead, a by stander is shot, a CCW person shoots the bad guy dead. Thats a total of 4, should that be called a "mass shooting"? Should that be considered the same kind of violence at the Las Vegas shooter who killed 58?


By lumping all violent crimes with guns used into one category it greatly inflates the category and does nothing to prevent the crimes.

 

[Cavedweller]

What about a guy who robs a store, shoots the clerk dead. A customer fights him and he shoots the customer dead, a by stander is shot, a CCW person shoots the bad guy dead. Thats a total of 4, should that be called a "mass shooting"?

No, that's a robbery. In this case, I see what you mean about motive making a difference.

Should that be considered the same kind of violence at the Las Vegas shooter who killed 58?

I don't want to go there because that's a whole different thing. I spent many, many hours studying police audio, various videos, still shots from before, during and after the event from various sources, and I can't say with any certainty exactly what happened there, except that the official narrative is a crock of sh1t.

By lumping all violent crimes with guns used into one category it greatly inflates the category and does nothing to prevent the crimes.

The classic lumper vs. splitter debate. I'm just not sure I'd make the split where you do. But I'm speaking from a statistical perspective.

 

[dancinghippos]

By lumping all violent crimes with guns used into one category it greatly inflates the category and does nothing to prevent the crimes.

And inflating the category fuels the propaganda against guns. It is political suicide for one group of politicians to run on locking up violent offenders. It is easy to "look busy" against crime by blaming guns instead of the criminals who use them

 

[Cavedweller]

And inflating the category fuels the propaganda against guns. It is political suicide for one group of politicians to run on locking up violent offenders. It is easy to "look busy" against crime by blaming guns instead of the criminals who use them

If your objective is to take guns away, does it matter to the gun controller if the scapegoat is a "mass shooter" or simply a murderer? If one did not exist to be exploited for propaganda purposes, they would simply exploit the other.

 

[Koda]

If your objective is to take guns away, does it matter to the gun controller if the scapegoat is a "mass shooter" or simply a murderer? If one did not exist to be exploited for propaganda purposes, they would simply exploit the other.

If ones objective is to take guns away then the objective is to place the blame on guns as the cause of all crime. Lumping all violent crime into one category based on an arbitrary number is doing just that.

 

[dancinghippos]

If your objective is to take guns away, does it matter to the gun controller if the scapegoat is a "mass shooter" or simply a murderer? If one did not exist to be exploited for propaganda purposes, they would simply exploit the other.

It matters when you are trying to sway public opinion. If someone believes there are 200 Uvalde incidents a year they will see the gun problem differently than when they hear there are 5 school shootings plus 195 gangster disputes. They might define the gun violence problem differently and look for different solutions. That does not help the objective to take guns away.

 

[Koda]

No, that's a robbery. In this case, I see what you mean about motive making a difference.

I don't want to go there because that's a whole different thing. I spent many, many hours studying police audio, various videos, still shots from before, during and after the event from various sources, and I can't say with any certainty exactly what happened there, except that the official narrative is a crock of sh1t.

The classic lumper vs. splitter debate. I'm just not sure I'd make the split where you do. But I'm speaking from a statistical perspective.

I appreciate the dialog and the understanding that you know where Im coming from. I'll add to my position that the number is arbitrary and from a statistical position that doesnt make sense to me. Even the number itself is still widely hotly debated among gun control groups though I think they are finally settling on 4.
(not that it matters to 3 victims... see what I mean )

as far as the LV shooting I was just using that as an example, if you want replace that with any of the (few) true mass shootings you feel are real or proven events.

 

[Koda]

It matters when you are trying to sway public opinion. If someone believes there are 200 Uvalde incidents a year they will see the gun problem differently than when they hear there are 5 school shootings plus 195 gangster disputes. They might define the gun violence problem differently and look for different solutions. That does not help the objective to take guns away.

yes, exactly this.
Even among Democratic liberal gun owners most people are much less sympathetic to gangster disputes or criminal on criminal disputes.
The gun grabbers know this so thus the motivation to inflate the blame on the gun itself while appealing to everyone's personal feeling of being unsafe in a public place, all because of guns.

Arbitrary numbers should not be used to make a definition.

 

[Cavedweller]

If ones objective is to take guns away then the objective is to place the blame on guns as the cause of all crime. Lumping all violent crime into one category based on an arbitrary number is doing just that.

I can't say that I see it that way. Guns don't shoot by themselves. Crime is crime. People are the agents of crime.

 

[Koda]

I can't say that I see it that way. Guns don't shoot by themselves. Crime is crime. People are the agents of crime.

Agree, and thats exactly why we should label crimes by their motivation and not some arbitrary number.

"mass shooting" takes away the motivation, the context of the crime. Today is March 19th and there still has not been 33 mass shootings since the day this thread was posted back in January.

 

[sobo]

Guns don't shoot by themselves. Crime is crime. People are the agents of crime.

You get that. Koda gets that. Even the gun-grabbers get that. But the GGs can't say that. It shoots their narrative in the foot. Excuse the pun...

 

[Koda]

"mass shooting" is a classic strawman manipulative fallacy. Focus on the body count, not the cause.