The mass shooting was the 565th in the U.S. in 2023 and the deadliest so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
We’re almost at the end of the year. And I don’t think this incident was as deadly as incidents in previous years, so uh… good job guys? I guess?
We've still got two months to go. At the average rate so far, if that rate holds, could result in ~56 more mass shootings before the end of the year.
GVA thinks someone stubbing a toe at a firing range is a mass shooting so whatever
The problem isn't real because it hasn't happened to zoboomafoo. Sigh
Need to do something about all these black mass shooters.
(if it's not obvious that's sarcasm.)
That's an exaggeration, but you're not far off.
They count any shooting with 4 or more injured as a "mass shooting".
I doubt that most people hear the phrase "mass shooting" and think "People at a party having too much to drink, get in an argument, the argument turns into a fight, guns are drawn, and 2 people on one side get shot and 2 people on the other side get shot."
Example from my own back yard so to speak... 3 dudes from Texas show up for a marijuana buy from two brothers in Oregon. Buy goes bad, 2 Texans are killed, both brothers are killed, one dude walks away.
GVA DOES count that as a mass shooting. I don't, for the simple reason that while those people were armed, and DID end up shooting 4 or more people, nobody went down there with guns with the INTENTION of shooting a bunch of people.
For me, and I wish more people defined it this way, a mass shooting is when one or more individuals show up armed in a populated area with the express intention of shooting as many people as possible.
That sort of shooting is FAR rarer. But nobody makes money off keeping people scared if that's the definition.
bruh 4 people injured or killed in a single incident absolutely is a mass shooting. I'm trying to get my head around how you are downplaying this
The standards in America are fucking crazy. "Yeah bro my cousin was buying some weed, next thing you know 4 people shot dead, but that shouldn't count" lmao.
lol the fact it's just a casual story about a drug shoot out with 4 dead with a direct connection to OP and OP doesn't think that's weird is confusing as fuck to me
Right? I literally have never heard of anyone getting shot even if I count friends of friends of friends x10. And I spent half my adult life in connections with very dodgy circles.
Their "just another normal shooting" story would make national news for weeks if it happened here.
Got really sad this summer, relatives from the US visited and we went to the lake to do Stand up paddle. Upon seeing the life veste, I heard, looks like the vest we wear for school shooting drill, :/
Yeah, It's so wild. Like, they are so delusional.
Let's push back the classification of mass shooting to lower the number. Ok, so we need one shooter and at least 10 dead. If people are only injured it shouldn't count. And the victim can't be criminal or have a criminal background. If drug or alcohol, not a mass shooting.
Gang shootings make up the vast majority of "mass shootings"
These gang members are the very definition of criminal, they know their actions are highly illegal. Making more guns illegal will not stop them
Huh? Are you saying that the white school/mall shooters weren't aware that killing people is illegal?
Quote me saying that... this is the most idiotic reply I've seen on lemmy
this is the most idiotic reply I've seen on lemmy
Idk, I kind of like this one:
Gang shootings make up the vast majority of "mass shootings"
These gang members are the very definition of criminal, they know their actions are highly illegal. Making more guns illegal will not stop them
Super simple, look at the example I cited of a drug buy gone bad. That's NOT a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive counts it as such even though it happened in a private home, not a public place, the shooters and victims involved were committing another crime when the shooting happened, and they were all there for the explicit purpose of committing that other crime, they didn't go there to shoot each other.
If you can't tell the difference between that and some psycho turning up in a grocery store to shoot as many people as possible, I don't know what to tell you. The circumstances are completely different.
the difference is intent, not outcome. 4 people shot. mass shooting. don't care why they shot each other. any other country doesn't just have "drug deals gone bad oops 4 dead but it's just another tuesday" unless it's a literal organised crime thing that went REAL bad and would have greater repercussions than just a couple of hicks you know
People do care why they shot each other, because in one case the general public is at risk and in the other the general public is not at risk.
That needs to be the definition of a mass shooting. Let's pull a hypothetical... if the Heaven's Gate nutjobs had all shot each other instead of poisoning themselves (39 dead), would you consider that a mass shooting?
For me, it happened on private property, solely among members of a cult, did not involve the public or innocent victims... it's a tragedy, it's a failure of multiple social safety nets, but it wouldn't be the same as someone killing 39 innocent, uninvolved, people in a school or shopping center.
The general public is definitely at risk if a drug buy goes bad a bullets start flying all over the place.
This one happened at a private house, still classified as a mass shooting.
Do you not realize that bullets go through walls? Luckily it was contained but could have easily turned into a tragedy if some toddler sleeping next door gets hit by a stray bullet. You are arguing semantics, just because it happened at someone's home instead of public doesn't not make it a mass shooting. You just want the numbers to look better so you can ignore certain types of gun violence. When in reality it should be lumped together because it is a systematic problem that needs to be fixed.
Again, not the same class of shooting as a random attack in a public place.
Gun violence is gun violence. Doesn't matter what location it takes place in.
Not all gun violence is a mass shooting. That's the point.
Of course it should count as a mass shooting if 39 people shot themselves/each other. You're looking for the definition of an act of terrorism, that has nothing to do with mass shooting. If we reverse your logic, and a guy kills 39 innocent bystanders but they used a bomb, would you then also call that a mass shooting?
Terrorism has a definition. It's an act of violence in service to a political ideology. None of the mass shootings have been classified as terrorism, though I'd argue the ones in the predominately black supermarket or church and the one in the predominately hispanic Walmart probably should have been.
There is no widely-accepted definition of "mass shooting" and different organizations tracking such incidents use different definitions. Definitions of mass shootings exclude warfare and sometimes exclude instances of gang violence, armed robberies, and familicides. The perpetrator of an ongoing mass shooting may be referred to as an active shooter.
In the United States, the country with the most mass shootings, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 defines mass killings as three or more killings in a single incident.[1] A Congressional Research Service report from 2013 specifies four or more killings on indiscriminate victims while excluding violence committed as a means to an end, such as robbery or terrorism.[2] Media outlets such as CNN and some crime violence research groups such as the Gun Violence Archive define mass shootings as involving "four or more shot (injured or killed) in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter".[3] Mother Jones magazine defines mass shootings as indiscriminate rampages killing three or more individuals excluding the perpetrator, gang violence, and armed robbery.[4][5] An Australian study from 2006 specifies five individuals killed.[6]
Your figure is off by two orders of magnitude, it's ~48k gun deaths, including suicides (for 2022).
So about 5k more than your car accident figure.
And it's odd to me you're arguing the license angle; are you advocating for a licensing system like there are for cars, like written and applied tests a citizen must pass before gun ownership?
Unfortunately, we can't require licensing. The Supreme Court already ruled that the core tenet of the 2nd Amendment is self defense and that can't be burdened.
What I PERSONALLY would like to see is a full root cause analysis on every shooting and plugging the holes that allowed it to happen.
For example:
In the Maine shooting, he bought the guns he used 10 days before being reported for abberant behavior and being involuntary committed for 2 weeks.
Background checks wouldn't work because he bought the guns before there were any reported problems.
Being involuntarily committed should have resulted in a seizure of all weapons. It did not. Why not? In most cases because seizures require a court ruling and if the commitment wasn't court mandated, that doesn't happen.
Bonus - if the commitment isn't court mandated, that also won't turn up on a background check, a common problem with other mass shooters.
That needs to change, and it doesn't involve the 2nd amendment or a change in gun laws, it just has to expand what already happens in court adjudicated cases to non adjudicated cases.
Alternately, you push ALL mental health commitments through court to ensure guns are withdrawn and the commitment shows up on background checks.
And we all know the Supreme Court never reverses a decision. That's why abortion is still legal nationwide.
All it takes is 50 years and a polar shift in opinion...
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court requires neither to reverse a decision. What with other decisions that weren't Roe taking a lot less than 50 years and what with their not caring about popular opinion.
Is this the first time you've heard of them?
Reversing Roe took 50 years because it took that long to get enough conservative judges appointed. It could not have happened sooner.
In my lifetime, Democratic presidents have only been able to appoint 5 justices to the court compared to 15 for Republican presidents.
If we want to change the gun rulings, that needs to be reversed, which should only take, oh, another 50 years or so.
Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
Stevens, John Paul - Ford
O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
Kagan, Elena - Obama
Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump
Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden
I see, because the past decides what happens in the future when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices. I had no idea.
The trend is for the court to get more and more conservative. This is NOT accidental. It's intentional.
In a fair world, the number of conservative vs liberal judges would be evenly distributed, it's NOT a fair world. So we get 15 Republican judges vs. 5 Democratic ones.
Going by age, the next two justices to be replaced should be Thomas and Alito. Unless that happens under a Democratic President, the people who replace them will be younger and more extreme, locking in the court for the rest of our lives.
Even under a Democratic President, it's still not guaranteed as we saw with Merrick Garland, you need a Democratic Senate as well.
If we're super lucky, we'll get Biden in '24, but his chance of replacing another judge is unlikely. Thomas will be 80 in 2028 and Alito will be 78. So whoever gets elected in '28 will likely get to replace them.
Took 13 years to undo prohibition, which unlike abortion and gun rights, was based on a clear and direct constitutional amendment with no arguments about "framers intent" or changes to technology/interpretations of rights over time.
This entire "50 years of cultural shift and overcoming supreme Court decisions" is straight bullshit.
We don't have the same environment now that we did then. We can't currently get an amendment to do ANYTHING at this point. Everything is too divided.
290 votes in the House, that couldn't get 217 to decide their own leadership.
67 votes in the Senate, that can't get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.
38 state ratifications where 25 states can't admit Joe Biden won the last election.
It's untenable, even on topics lots of people can agree on, like, say, term limits for Supreme Court Justices, or barring convicted felons from public office.
What difference does it make why it happened, think of the impact on the community, neighbors, innocent bystanders, hearing or seeing that crap going down. That's PTSD material. And the family of all the people involved, even if they were criminals, that's an exponentially bigger impact than if one or two people are involved.
IMO you're thinking of the difference between terrorism and violence. A mass shooting can be an act of terrorism (inflict harm on a large number of people), but it doesn't have to, it's the number (mass) involved, not the intent.
The intent very much matters. In the example I stated above, the intent on one side was to buy a bunch of weed and the intent on the other side was to sell a bunch of weed. Nobody walked into that looking to shoot someone, it just worked out that way.
Compared to someone hauling an AR-15 into a supermarket and shooting indiscriminately, that's a huge difference in intent.
In the case of the public at large, the latter case results in "oh, shit, that could have been me!" but the former case it's "Well, glad I'm not trying to illegally sell a bunch of weed to out of towners!"
Calling both a "mass shooting" does a disservice to the victims of actual mass shootings.
I'm pretty sure GVA lumps every shooting together because then the only common factor, and then the only solution, is the gun itself
That and they make money by keeping people scared. "ZOMG! MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN DAYS IN THE YEAR!!!" and news orgs repeat it without questioning their methodology.
The mass shooting was the 565th in the U.S. in 2023 and the deadliest so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
We’re almost at the end of the year. And I don’t think this incident was as deadly as incidents in previous years, so uh… good job guys? I guess?
We've still got two months to go. At the average rate so far, if that rate holds, could result in ~56 more mass shootings before the end of the year.
GVA thinks someone stubbing a toe at a firing range is a mass shooting so whatever
The problem isn't real because it hasn't happened to zoboomafoo. Sigh
Need to do something about all these black mass shooters.
(if it's not obvious that's sarcasm.)
That's an exaggeration, but you're not far off.
They count any shooting with 4 or more injured as a "mass shooting".
I doubt that most people hear the phrase "mass shooting" and think "People at a party having too much to drink, get in an argument, the argument turns into a fight, guns are drawn, and 2 people on one side get shot and 2 people on the other side get shot."
Example from my own back yard so to speak... 3 dudes from Texas show up for a marijuana buy from two brothers in Oregon. Buy goes bad, 2 Texans are killed, both brothers are killed, one dude walks away.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/06/two-portland-brothers-two-marijuana-buyers-die-in-gun-battle-during-attempted-drug-ripoff.html
GVA DOES count that as a mass shooting. I don't, for the simple reason that while those people were armed, and DID end up shooting 4 or more people, nobody went down there with guns with the INTENTION of shooting a bunch of people.
For me, and I wish more people defined it this way, a mass shooting is when one or more individuals show up armed in a populated area with the express intention of shooting as many people as possible.
That sort of shooting is FAR rarer. But nobody makes money off keeping people scared if that's the definition.
bruh 4 people injured or killed in a single incident absolutely is a mass shooting. I'm trying to get my head around how you are downplaying this
The standards in America are fucking crazy. "Yeah bro my cousin was buying some weed, next thing you know 4 people shot dead, but that shouldn't count" lmao.
lol the fact it's just a casual story about a drug shoot out with 4 dead with a direct connection to OP and OP doesn't think that's weird is confusing as fuck to me
Right? I literally have never heard of anyone getting shot even if I count friends of friends of friends x10. And I spent half my adult life in connections with very dodgy circles.
Their "just another normal shooting" story would make national news for weeks if it happened here.
Got really sad this summer, relatives from the US visited and we went to the lake to do Stand up paddle. Upon seeing the life veste, I heard, looks like the vest we wear for school shooting drill, :/
Yeah, It's so wild. Like, they are so delusional.
Let's push back the classification of mass shooting to lower the number. Ok, so we need one shooter and at least 10 dead. If people are only injured it shouldn't count. And the victim can't be criminal or have a criminal background. If drug or alcohol, not a mass shooting.
Gang shootings make up the vast majority of "mass shootings"
These gang members are the very definition of criminal, they know their actions are highly illegal. Making more guns illegal will not stop them
Huh? Are you saying that the white school/mall shooters weren't aware that killing people is illegal?
Quote me saying that... this is the most idiotic reply I've seen on lemmy
Idk, I kind of like this one:
Super simple, look at the example I cited of a drug buy gone bad. That's NOT a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive counts it as such even though it happened in a private home, not a public place, the shooters and victims involved were committing another crime when the shooting happened, and they were all there for the explicit purpose of committing that other crime, they didn't go there to shoot each other.
If you can't tell the difference between that and some psycho turning up in a grocery store to shoot as many people as possible, I don't know what to tell you. The circumstances are completely different.
the difference is intent, not outcome. 4 people shot. mass shooting. don't care why they shot each other. any other country doesn't just have "drug deals gone bad oops 4 dead but it's just another tuesday" unless it's a literal organised crime thing that went REAL bad and would have greater repercussions than just a couple of hicks you know
People do care why they shot each other, because in one case the general public is at risk and in the other the general public is not at risk.
That needs to be the definition of a mass shooting. Let's pull a hypothetical... if the Heaven's Gate nutjobs had all shot each other instead of poisoning themselves (39 dead), would you consider that a mass shooting?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)
For me, it happened on private property, solely among members of a cult, did not involve the public or innocent victims... it's a tragedy, it's a failure of multiple social safety nets, but it wouldn't be the same as someone killing 39 innocent, uninvolved, people in a school or shopping center.
The general public is definitely at risk if a drug buy goes bad a bullets start flying all over the place.
This one happened at a private house, still classified as a mass shooting.
Do you not realize that bullets go through walls? Luckily it was contained but could have easily turned into a tragedy if some toddler sleeping next door gets hit by a stray bullet. You are arguing semantics, just because it happened at someone's home instead of public doesn't not make it a mass shooting. You just want the numbers to look better so you can ignore certain types of gun violence. When in reality it should be lumped together because it is a systematic problem that needs to be fixed.
Again, not the same class of shooting as a random attack in a public place.
Gun violence is gun violence. Doesn't matter what location it takes place in.
Not all gun violence is a mass shooting. That's the point.
Of course it should count as a mass shooting if 39 people shot themselves/each other. You're looking for the definition of an act of terrorism, that has nothing to do with mass shooting. If we reverse your logic, and a guy kills 39 innocent bystanders but they used a bomb, would you then also call that a mass shooting?
Terrorism has a definition. It's an act of violence in service to a political ideology. None of the mass shootings have been classified as terrorism, though I'd argue the ones in the predominately black supermarket or church and the one in the predominately hispanic Walmart probably should have been.
there is no one definition
The definition of mass shooting shouldn't detract from the fact that 500+ shootings 4+ injured is too many
500+ shootings in a country with 330 million people and 400 million guns is a rounding error.
Last year there were 42,795 fatal car accidents, we have 233 million licensed drivers. 85 times more than shootings with 4 or more injured.
https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/auto-insurance/fatal-car-crash-statistics/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191653/number-of-licensed-drivers-in-the-us-since-1988/
Your figure is off by two orders of magnitude, it's ~48k gun deaths, including suicides (for 2022).
So about 5k more than your car accident figure.
And it's odd to me you're arguing the license angle; are you advocating for a licensing system like there are for cars, like written and applied tests a citizen must pass before gun ownership?
Unfortunately, we can't require licensing. The Supreme Court already ruled that the core tenet of the 2nd Amendment is self defense and that can't be burdened.
What I PERSONALLY would like to see is a full root cause analysis on every shooting and plugging the holes that allowed it to happen.
For example:
In the Maine shooting, he bought the guns he used 10 days before being reported for abberant behavior and being involuntary committed for 2 weeks.
Background checks wouldn't work because he bought the guns before there were any reported problems.
Being involuntarily committed should have resulted in a seizure of all weapons. It did not. Why not? In most cases because seizures require a court ruling and if the commitment wasn't court mandated, that doesn't happen.
Bonus - if the commitment isn't court mandated, that also won't turn up on a background check, a common problem with other mass shooters.
That needs to change, and it doesn't involve the 2nd amendment or a change in gun laws, it just has to expand what already happens in court adjudicated cases to non adjudicated cases.
Alternately, you push ALL mental health commitments through court to ensure guns are withdrawn and the commitment shows up on background checks.
And we all know the Supreme Court never reverses a decision. That's why abortion is still legal nationwide.
All it takes is 50 years and a polar shift in opinion...
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court requires neither to reverse a decision. What with other decisions that weren't Roe taking a lot less than 50 years and what with their not caring about popular opinion.
Is this the first time you've heard of them?
Reversing Roe took 50 years because it took that long to get enough conservative judges appointed. It could not have happened sooner.
In my lifetime, Democratic presidents have only been able to appoint 5 justices to the court compared to 15 for Republican presidents.
If we want to change the gun rulings, that needs to be reversed, which should only take, oh, another 50 years or so.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
Stevens, John Paul - Ford
O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
Kagan, Elena - Obama
Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump
Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden
I see, because the past decides what happens in the future when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices. I had no idea.
The trend is for the court to get more and more conservative. This is NOT accidental. It's intentional.
https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority
Which gives us:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/05/1109444617/the-supreme-court-conservative
In a fair world, the number of conservative vs liberal judges would be evenly distributed, it's NOT a fair world. So we get 15 Republican judges vs. 5 Democratic ones.
Going by age, the next two justices to be replaced should be Thomas and Alito. Unless that happens under a Democratic President, the people who replace them will be younger and more extreme, locking in the court for the rest of our lives.
Even under a Democratic President, it's still not guaranteed as we saw with Merrick Garland, you need a Democratic Senate as well.
If we're super lucky, we'll get Biden in '24, but his chance of replacing another judge is unlikely. Thomas will be 80 in 2028 and Alito will be 78. So whoever gets elected in '28 will likely get to replace them.
Harris? Yeah, no. Snowball's chance.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4103153-kamala-harris-is-far-from-the-worst-vice-president-why-do-polls-say-otherwise/
Took 13 years to undo prohibition, which unlike abortion and gun rights, was based on a clear and direct constitutional amendment with no arguments about "framers intent" or changes to technology/interpretations of rights over time.
This entire "50 years of cultural shift and overcoming supreme Court decisions" is straight bullshit.
We don't have the same environment now that we did then. We can't currently get an amendment to do ANYTHING at this point. Everything is too divided.
290 votes in the House, that couldn't get 217 to decide their own leadership.
67 votes in the Senate, that can't get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.
38 state ratifications where 25 states can't admit Joe Biden won the last election.
It's untenable, even on topics lots of people can agree on, like, say, term limits for Supreme Court Justices, or barring convicted felons from public office.
And those should be the uncontroversial topics...
What difference does it make why it happened, think of the impact on the community, neighbors, innocent bystanders, hearing or seeing that crap going down. That's PTSD material. And the family of all the people involved, even if they were criminals, that's an exponentially bigger impact than if one or two people are involved.
IMO you're thinking of the difference between terrorism and violence. A mass shooting can be an act of terrorism (inflict harm on a large number of people), but it doesn't have to, it's the number (mass) involved, not the intent.
The intent very much matters. In the example I stated above, the intent on one side was to buy a bunch of weed and the intent on the other side was to sell a bunch of weed. Nobody walked into that looking to shoot someone, it just worked out that way.
Compared to someone hauling an AR-15 into a supermarket and shooting indiscriminately, that's a huge difference in intent.
In the case of the public at large, the latter case results in "oh, shit, that could have been me!" but the former case it's "Well, glad I'm not trying to illegally sell a bunch of weed to out of towners!"
Calling both a "mass shooting" does a disservice to the victims of actual mass shootings.
I'm pretty sure GVA lumps every shooting together because then the only common factor, and then the only solution, is the gun itself
That and they make money by keeping people scared. "ZOMG! MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN DAYS IN THE YEAR!!!" and news orgs repeat it without questioning their methodology.