I thought this was interesting.

Science!

Does it upset you to see how unpopular your views really are?

Yes. This one super scientific twitter poll has rocked my entire worldview. Now I realise kids should be getting shot in the face with assault rifles because you want to compensate for a small peen.

That seems like an odd comment. I've never shot a gun and I don't plan to. There are plenty of stories of women using a firearm to protect herself from rape. If everything is about penis size to you, I think a psychologist could help you through some problems.

How is a mass shooting defined?

Mass Shootingsefintions and Trends

Quote:

What Is a Mass Shooting?

In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). However, the government has never defined mass shooting as a separate category, and there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term. Thus, media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies frequently use different definitions when discussing mass shootings, which can complicate our understanding of mass shooting trends and their relationship to gun policy. The table below provides examples of the variation in the criteria set by five of the most commonly referenced data sources on mass shootings in the United States.

Although there is no official standard for the casualty threshold that distinguishes a mass shooting from other violent crimes involving a firearm, a common approach in the literature is to adopt the FBI’s criteria for a mass murderer and set a casualty threshold of four fatalities by firearm, excluding the offender or offenders (Duwe, *Kovandzic, and Moody, 2002; Krouse and Richardson, 2015; Gius, 2015c; Fox and Fridel, 2016). However, this categorization is not without controversy. It does not capture incidents in which fewer than four victims were killed but additional victims were injured, and it does not include multiple-victim homicides in which fewer than four fatalities resulted from gunshots but additional fatalities occurred by other means. Additionally, the FBI classification of mass murderer was established primarily with the aim of clarifying criminal profiling procedures, not for the purpose of data collection or statistical *analysis (Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas, 1988). Thus, many have chosen alternative definitions of casualty thresholds for mass shootings. For instance, Lott and Landes (2000) adopted the definition of two or more injured victims, the Gun Violence Archive (undated-a) defined mass shooting as an incident in which four or more victims (excluding the shooter) are injured or killed, and Mass Shooting Tracker (undated) set a criterion of four or more people injured or killed (including the shooter).

Another definitional disagreement is whether to include multiple-victim shooting incidents that occur in connection with some other crime or domestic dispute. Because mass shootings that stem from domestic and gang violence are contextually distinct from high-fatality indiscriminate killings in public venues, some have argued that they should be treated separately. In their analyses of “mass public shootings,” Lott and Landes (2000) excluded any felony-related shooting, and Duwe, Kovandzic, and Moody (2002) excluded incidents where “both the victims and offender(s) were involved in unlawful activities, such as organized crime, gang activity, and drug deals” (p. 276). Similarly, Gius (2015c) restricted analysis to events that occurred in a relatively public area and in which victims appeared to have been selected randomly. However, others have claimed that this narrow definition ignores a substantial proportion of gun-related violence from family- or felony-related murder (Fox and Levin, 2015). Data collection efforts by Mass Shooting Tracker and the Gun Violence Archive thus counted all incidents that met their designated casualty threshold as mass shootings, regardless of the circumstances that led to the event.

These definitions matter. Depending on which data source is referenced, there were seven, 65, 332, or 371 mass shootings in the United States in 2015 (see table below), and those are just some examples. More-restrictive definitions (e.g., Mother Jones) focus on the prevalence of higher-profile events motivated by mass murder, but they omit more-common incidents occurring in connection with domestic violence or criminal activity, which make up about 80 percent of mass shooting incidents with four or more fatally injured victims (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). Broader definitions (e.g., Mass Shooting Tracker) provide a more comprehensive depiction of the prevalence of gun violence, but they obscure the variety of circumstances in which these incidents take place and their associated policy implications. Furthermore, if the effects of a firearm policy are expected to affect only public mass shooting incidents, then analysis that includes domestic violence mass shootings in the outcome measure could obscure identification of significant effects that would be found in a more targeted analysis of public mass shootings alone. There is thus value in having multiple measurements of mass shootings—but only if their definitions are clearly and precisely explained and they are used by researchers in a manner appropriate to the analysis.

Here is a pretty good illustration of why it matters:

Do 98% of Mass Shootins Occur in Gun Free Zones?

The answer is yes (a very high percentage) and no, depends how you define mass shootings.

I’m surprised that this didn’t get any responses. Well named, do you find it interesting that when we remove the US from your list of 102 countries that the data shows more guns equals less violence?

Probably because that graph tells us essentially nothing. Both with and without the US included the R² values are 0. That tells us that the trend line is almost completely arbitrary and is not useful as a predictor of anything, which is not surprising given we are comparing a range of wildly different countries that contains a large number of huge outliers.

Out of curiosity I tried to narrow the list of countries down to those that are more reasonably comparable to the US. The first list I found that seemed reasonable was the CIA list of "advanced economies" (found here ). When I got rid of all the countries not on that list the graph looked like this:



and without USA:



I wouldn't really say that these tell us a huge amount either given that it's still a somewhat arbitrary set of countries, but they at least show something closer to reliable trends that do not exist in the larger data set.

Did you see post #73? It was directly a response to your question, and I made the post entirely because I was interested enough to spend an hour or two grabbing all the data to take a look. So, sure, I think it's interesting.

That said, to be precise -- I agree with WillD: the data does not show a meaningful correlation between rates of civilian gun ownership and rates of homicide across the countries that I looked at.

My recent post (#107) was talking about my post (#94) which was a response to your post (#73). If you take the 101 countries you choose (after removing USA#1) it shows less guns equals less violence. I don't know if using only 101 countries is statistically significant since there are so many other variables, but that is what the trend line shows.

Still no one trying to talk about actual workable ideas that would make a difference, just more useless discussions on irrelevant data.

Do you have any suggestions re: workable ideas? I'm interested.

there have been several actual workable ideas mentioned in this thread.

I heard a caller on the local public radio this morning that brought up two very interesting points that never even occurred to me..

The 2nd Amendment says, "a well regulated militia"

The constitution is a federal document, not a state document.
So the federal govmt should regulate gun laws, not each individual state.

Per usual... bigot doesn't know anything about the situation. NPR is notoriously bad on the 2nd Amendment. Largely, they know the facts and just lie to their audience. Its embarrassing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDona...ity_of_Chicago

Please explain why the "People" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are not the same "People" mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. Please cite references.

I encourage you to read Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller which discusses the individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment.

Please post how the individual State Constitutions stand currently.



I'm not holding my breath on this. Anti self-defense bigots historically are racist/classist in their goals of oppression -- I've seen no indication that modern anti-gun "progressives" are any different.

The caller claimed to be from Virginia and descended from the Lee family of the signers of the constitution.
Of course, we can only take his word.

So, since you helped me out with so many references, I'll do quid pro quo.

Bigot definition

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions

You're welcome

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

So a person from a slave-owner family wants to disarm the people...

Seems about right.

Why are you on their side?

Disgusting.

I'm not on anybody's side.

I'm against mass shootings.
Mass shootings are disgusting.

I'm for keeping an open mind to find better solutions.

Thoughts and prayers ain't cutting it

And I addressed the few ideas that were posted as to why they weren't viable or made no sense, to no further discussion. If someone wants to actually discuss and defend their ideas, I'm all for it.


I think there's a few areas that can certainly be improved upon.

First is mental health. If there is a push country wide to better identify and treat people with mental health issues, less firearm related crime will occur as a by product. Increase training of health care professionals so that they can more readily identify people's symptoms and arrive at the proper diagnosis, build community mental health services that are easily accessible and affordable, and use outreach programs to reach out proactively to the members in that community. Also improving the integration of mental health care into primary health care, and using software based tool like apps to make people able to receive quicker access to a mental health professional without the wait.

On the legal side of that issue, background checks when purchasing a firearm go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The 2 ways you will be denied from purchasing a firearm due to mental health are:
1. You have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for a period longer than 72 hours.
2. You have been deemed by a court or government body that due to your mental health, you are a danger to yourself or others or you are unable to manage your own affairs.
The problem with that is that it is not federal law that states are required to make these mental health records part of background check system, it's just a voluntary submission process and many times they fail to voluntarily report the records.
As such I think making this a federal regulation would help with having people with documented mental health issues from "slipping through the cracks" and managing to purchase a gun. You run into the same problem with the military which is supposed to report any mental health problems you incurred during service, but a lot of times the information just doesn't get transferred over when you exit, so improvements in that area would work as well.
There are also some states that have or are thinking about "red flag laws" which typically allow the police or family members to petition a court for a temporary gun restraining order. You are required to attend a hearing in which you can respond to the evidence, and a judge can issue a final order that typically lasts up to a year and can be renewed. The restraining orders usually allow the police to seize people’s guns and restrict them from buying new ones. I think this is a decent option as well, but could possibly lead to a slippery slope type of deal, so making it clear and nationwide with solid legislation could be an option.

I'm also in favor of increasing the penalties for people that choose to break the current laws on the books. In some states, illegally carrying a firearm is only a misdemeanor, giving you a few days in jail if you're caught. I think that breaking the law in regards to firearms should be a much more serious offense than it already is and not just when it's involved with drugs or other crimes.
I'm also in favor of closing the "boyfriend gap". Federal law prevents anyone with domestic violence misdemeanors from having a gun (any felony convictions automatically means you can't own or purchase a gun), but that law doesn’t include all domestic violence perpetrators, for example, boyfriends. More specifically, the law doesn’t keep guns from abusers who are not married, do not live with their partner or do not share a child with them. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or no weapon, and abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm. So literally anyone who has ever been convicted of anything that classifies as domestic abuse should instantly forfeit all rights to own a firearm.

If I think about it a little more I could come up with a few more, but that would be a start. I'd be in favor of nationally mandating safety course requirements and increasing those requirements as well. But these are examples of things that could be accomplished and could actually have an impact and are things that most gun owners would be in favor of. Saying you want to ban guns, or ban semi automatic rifles, or ban high capacity magazines etc etc, all will either never get enough support to pass, will do nothing if passed, or both.

Sandman, the problem with confiscating guns in domestic disputes is that there are so many total bull**** cases that result in unjustified seizure. You can read countless accounts online of guys who have been dispossessed of their guns because their wife was yelling at them, neighbors called the police, and the cop shows up and says one of you is going to jail tonight, and it's invariably the man. Then if the woman is spiteful (not a rare happenstance in a domestic dispute), she brings abuse charges. Then the man is facing years in jail even if the charges are completely faked, and he gets railroaded into accepting a plea deal, which results in his loss of gun rights. It's ****ed up and happens all the time. And you don't even need to be convicted of anything in a lot of places for cops to show up and take your guns if an angry ex says you threatened her. These are the "red flag laws" you mention. There are thousands of psycho women out there who drum up total bull**** out of jealousy (think of the dozens of fake rapes and hate crimes that actually make the news; multiply by a thousand) and cops come and confiscate the guy's property. No due process, no court appearance, no presumption of innocence. These red flag laws get passed by well-intentioned voters, and the judges don't want to be on the hook for turning down a warrant should something happen, so justice goes out the window.

I'm wary of your general sentiment on the mental health stuff, too. I've heard from a lot of people who don't want to get help from psychologists because if they say that they're having suicidal thoughts or anything along those lines, there go your guns, and god knows if you'll ever be able to legally own them again.

I understand and sort of sympathise with your view on unwarranted seizure of a citizen's lawfully owned firearms. According to the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment you are right.

But I don't understand at all this scewed idea that somehow guns keep us safe. They don't. According to you, a woman with a gun has a better chance of defending herself against rape.
Then how come America is the top country in the world with reported rape cases?
If more guns keep us safe, how come America is second only to Yemen, Yemen! IN mass shootings?

It's like some people in this country live in some type of cocoon.
Bizzare. Just take a look around the world and see what's really going on.
All the far right arguments fall flat.

OK, so are you saying that you're against domestic violence offenders not being allowed to own a gun? Because all I did was say that the current federal DV laws be applied to people that aren't married or people that aren't classified as living together. Because the current law states that it only applies if you fit one of the following criteria:

Be a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
Share a child in common with the victim.
Be a current or former cohabitant with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian.
Be similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

So which part of the federal law don't you agree with, and then why would you be opposed to it also applying to non married individuals/people who don't live/share a kid together?
Also, it is not currently federal law to seize guns from someone with a DV conviction. In fact, only 15 states have that provision. There are many different states that have different laws that address guns and DV convictions, this is why I only addressed the current federal law. What would you wish the law to be, if you could have it your way? Would you prefer that a DV conviction NOT cause you to be prohibited to own a gun?

Also I think your statement about whats common in DV cases is not accurate. In order for an innocent person to lose their right to a gun from a DV case, a lot of things have to happen in succession. First, there has to be a reported incident. Then the officer on scene hears the sides of both stories and has to unjustly side with the woman and arrest you. Then the woman making the false claim has to actually press charges. Then the unjustly accused man has to agree to take a plea deal in the face of what you described as years of jail time, which is literally impossible for most DV cases, especially a first offense. And if he doesn't plea, he will see a judge who will look at the "fake" evidence and then convict him anyway. The idea that that is something that just happens "all the time" is pretty ridiculous.
Also, please list the states where your guns can be seized on pure accusation, with no protection order and no court appearance, I don't know of any state where that's the law. New Jersey has the strongest law in the entire country in regards to this, which requires police officers to remove firearms after any protective order is issued, most other states require a protective order to be issued that SPECIFICALLY states the offender must surrender their firearms. In any case, there is no state that your guns can be seized without a minimum of a protection order issued by a judge that I'm aware of.

As far as mental health goes, again what are you in favor of? Do you prefer that people who have mental health problems be allowed to buy guns? If not, spell out the policy that you would approve of. I believe that if you're having suicidal thoughts strong enough that you would need to seek professional help, then you shouldn't be allowed to buy or have guns during that time of your life. The fact that people will not get help so they can keep guns will happen no matter what policy you have, so why not make the laws have as thorough coverage as possible? Mostly what I was advocating for in my previous post is having the laws that were already on the books be more effective at doing what they are designed to do. And there's nothing that says provisions can't be made where you are temporally banned from owning or purchasing gun if you've had mental health problems in the past, but then you get better and you get documents from certified mental health professionals and then your privileges are reinstated. The reality is if you've ever had a history of mental health and you buy a firearm you are already breaking the law because you're asked that question every time you purchase. I'd just like there to be more tools in place to catch the liars.

Are you saying that the US has more mass shootings or that you are more likely to die in the U.S. in a mass shooting than other parts of the world? One isn't really that relevant given the size of the US population, the other is. Do you have a source about the actual death rate per 100,000 for mass shootings instead of just an overall number comparison?

This is news to you?

There is no point in continuing.

If it's so commonplace knowledge, should be super easy to link a study for discussion right?