Current Events > El Paso, Dayton make 251 mass shootings in the US in 216 days

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/03/el-paso-walmart-shooting-250th-mass-shooting-this-year/1913486001/
---

Fucking hell
---

Stop making guns. A simple solution that will never happen.
---

Lock her up

---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77914823

---

Truly sad
---

We haven't prayed to God hard enough.

---

eston posted...

Lock her up

hockeybub89 posted...

We haven't prayed to God hard enough.

These. Also video games and her emails.
---

Lock her up then send her back.
---

For those curious:

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we dont exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.
GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident.

The FBI does not define Mass Shooting in any form. They do define Mass Killing but that includes all forms of weapon, not just guns.

In that, the criteria are simpleif four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

---

Damn America might have a gun problem!
---

GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we dont exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

The fuck is this shit, some sort of actual objectivity?

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we dont exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

The fuck is this shit, some sort of actual objectivity?

---

this is the season of mental illness, i thought it was pretty obvious.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Why should those be excluded
---

Antifar posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Why should those be excluded

To make the numbers look better.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Why is it not fair to include gang related shootings? If you can count someone who was indoctrinated by white supremacist and then goes out and shoots people because of it as a mass shooter, then why can you not count someone who has been indoctrinated by a gang and then goes out and shoots people because of it as a mass shooter?
---

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Why?

s0nicfan posted...

For those curious:

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we dont exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.
GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident.

The FBI does not define Mass Shooting in any form. They do define Mass Killing but that includes all forms of weapon, not just guns.

In that, the criteria are simpleif four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

It should also be stated that GVA is the only one that I'm aware of that bases the definition of mass shooting on 4 or more shot, not necessarily killed. This, conveniently, is what most of the mainstream media goes off of despite the fact 'mass killing' has been defined as 4 or more killed in a single incident.

When you consider that, it's 20, not 251. With 3 or more killed it goes up to 32. That is by no means to say it is acceptable, just that the mainstream media doesn't decide what a "mass shooting" is or isn't just so they can fuel there political bullshit.

Fossil posted...

s0nicfan posted...

For those curious:

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we dont exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.
GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident.

The FBI does not define Mass Shooting in any form. They do define Mass Killing but that includes all forms of weapon, not just guns.

In that, the criteria are simpleif four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

It should also be stated that GVA is the only one that I'm aware of that bases the definition of mass shooting on 4 or more shot, not necessarily killed. This, conveniently, is what most of the mainstream media goes off of despite the fact 'mass killing' has been defined as 4 or more killed in a single incident.

When you consider that, it's 20, not 251. With 3 or more killed it goes up to 32. That is by no means to say it is acceptable, just that the mainstream media doesn't decide what a "mass shooting" is or isn't just so they can fuel there political bullshit.

Good point, but we shouldn't have as many as that either.
---

Antifar posted...

Why should those be excluded

The Gun Violence Archive doesn't care what kind of gun violence it is. If four or more people die when a gun is involved, they are lumped in the same category. Meanwhile, the FBI doesn't even use the term "mass shooting" They use "active shooter incidents" The FBI actually has categories for gang and drug related shootings, domestic violence shootings, suicides, and other categories.

---

Fossil posted...

s0nicfan posted...

For those curious:

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we dont exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.
GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident.

The FBI does not define Mass Shooting in any form. They do define Mass Killing but that includes all forms of weapon, not just guns.

In that, the criteria are simpleif four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

It should also be stated that GVA is the only one that I'm aware of that bases the definition of mass shooting on 4 or more shot, not necessarily killed. This, conveniently, is what most of the mainstream media goes off of despite the fact 'mass killing' has been defined as 4 or more killed in a single incident.

When you consider that, it's 20, not 251. With 3 or more killed it goes up to 32. That is by no means to say it is acceptable, just that the mainstream media doesn't decide what a "mass shooting" is or isn't just so they can fuel there political bullshit.

So people shooting at other people are not the problem, it is only a problem when people dies?
---

america is a wild place. one of the most diverse countries in the world, one of the biggest countries in the world (population and size), massive military, massive GDP, massive world influence.

it's really a unique country and it's not as easy as simply pointing at guns for the cause of these crimes. to fix the problem would have to be massive societal reform in how we treat guns, how the media acts, etc.

shits cray
---

Foppe posted...

So people shooting at other people are not the problem, it is only a problem when people dies?

Violence is human nature. So you take away the gun, then what? You think those violent tendencies or triggers won't cause someone to snap and they'll just go home defeated? If someone wants to cause harm, they'll do it. A gun just makes that a little easier to accomplish.

I don't disagree that something needs to change, but there's too much division on what needs to happen for anything effective to actually happen.

Fossil posted...

Foppe posted...

So people shooting at other people are not the problem, it is only a problem when people dies?

Violence is human nature. So you take away the gun, then what? You think those violent tendencies or triggers won't cause someone to snap and they'll just go home defeated? If someone wants to cause harm, they'll do it. A gun just makes that a little easier to accomplish.

I don't disagree that something needs to change, but there's too much division on what needs to happen for anything effective to actually happen.

So every other first world country that got less problems of this kind are populated by inhumans?
---

Foppe posted...

So every other first world country that got less problems of this kind are populated by inhumans?

... what?

Fossil posted...

Foppe posted...

So every other first world country that got less problems of this kind are populated by inhumans?

... what?

You said that Violence is human nature.
So why are we not seeing the same level of violence in other first world countries?
Switzerland got tons of guns and yet they got less shootings. How is that expained?
If they are humans, then they must be violent which would cause more shootings. So are they humans?
---

Fossil posted...

Violence is human nature. So you take away the gun, then what? You think those violent tendencies or triggers won't cause someone to snap and they'll just go home defeated? If someone wants to cause harm, they'll do it. A gun just makes that a little easier to accomplish.

There's a reason we arm soldiers primarily with rifles and not knives. Sure, you can kill someone with a knife, but you won't be able to do so as quickly or as relatively risk free as from a distance.

Guns make killing easier. We may not be able to eliminate killing entirely, but I think it would be good policy to make it less easy.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Oh really?

Why is that?

If a gang person shoots 10 people, why is it not a mass shooting?

FrozenXylophone posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Oh really?

Why is that?

If a gang person shoots 10 people, why is it not a mass shooting?

It's considered gang violence and a different category, assuming your bullshit hypothetical is gang related.

If the "gang person" (we all know what you mean) shoots ten people walking into McDonald's, that's a different category.
---

DrizztLink posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Oh really?

Why is that?

If a gang person shoots 10 people, why is it not a mass shooting?

It's considered gang violence and a different category.

If the "gang person" (we all know what you mean) shoots ten people walking into McDonald's, that's a different category.

Okay, why?

Questionmarktarius posted...

DrizztLink posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

They are also counting gang and drug related shooting as well. I don't really think this is really a fair statistic.

Oh really?

Why is that?

If a gang person shoots 10 people, why is it not a mass shooting?

It's considered gang violence and a different category.

If the "gang person" (we all know what you mean) shoots ten people walking into McDonald's, that's a different category.

Okay, why?

... because that's how the law works.
---

Gangs and the people therein are treated differently because they are criminal by definition.

Anyone who can be jailed according to RICO aren't regular citizens.
---

Foppe posted...

You said that Violence is human nature.
So why are we not seeing the same level of violence in other first world countries?
Switzerland got tons of guns and yet they got less shootings. How is that expained?
If they are humans, then they must be violent which would cause more shootings. So are they humans?

Because Switzerland doesn't have 327 million people? Not only that, Switzerland has a mandatory conscription for men, where they are trained to use their weapons. The Swiss also have a very strict venting system in place in order to get a permit to own a firearm, something the US doesn't have, which they should.

---

DrizztLink posted...

Gangs and the people therein are treated differently because they are criminal by definition.

Anyone who can be jailed according to RICO aren't regular citizens.

Gang violence doesn't just end in deaths of criminals fyi.

FrozenXylophone posted...

DrizztLink posted...

Gangs and the people therein are treated differently because they are criminal by definition.

Anyone who can be jailed according to RICO aren't regular citizens.

Gang violence doesn't just end in deaths of criminals fyi.

And fire is hot.

Any other obvious points, or are you done?
---

When the media reports "251 mass shootings in the US in 216 days" people (some people) will think they mean the incidents like the two that just happened. Because the media hardly reports gang shootings or gang violence anymore. The media doesn't report those as mass shootings. They got some stats based on standards that the media doesn't even follow. Happens all the time. But hey they got a reason to write up a juicy click-bait article right? Lying dishonest media.
---

Foppe posted...

So why are we not seeing the same level of violence in other first world countries?

Just because the media doesn't cover it and sensationalizes mass shooting in America doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm assuming you've got sources to back up this claim? I'm all ears. (ps - violence in general, not gun violence, just so we are clear)

Foppe posted...

Switzerland got tons of guns and yet they got less shootings. How is that expained?

Why don't you do some homework and answer your own question? I'm sure you'll find quite a few reasons why. Here I'll name one for you: Mandatory military service for all males.

Do you need me to explain to you why that's a good thing?

DrizztLink posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

DrizztLink posted...

Gangs and the people therein are treated differently because they are criminal by definition.

Anyone who can be jailed according to RICO aren't regular citizens.

Gang violence doesn't just end in deaths of criminals fyi.

And fire is hot.

Any other obvious points, or are you done?

So why is that a separate category?

Seems to be a mass number of people shot.

By the metric in the op, if 4 or more are injured, it qualifies.

FrozenXylophone posted...

Gang violence doesn't just end in deaths of criminals fyi.

Walking into a Walmart, killing 20 people is a lot different then some gangbangers killing 5 in a driveby shooting.

One is done by a mentally unstable person and the other is done by criminal scum.

---

DirkDiggles posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

Gang violence doesn't just end in deaths of criminals fyi.

Walking into a Walmart, killing 20 people is a lot different then some gangbangers killing 5 in a driveby shooting.

One is done by a mentally unstable person and the other is done by criminal scum.

Gang members can be mentally unstable and the non gang member can also be mentally stable.
The walmart shooter seems not mentally ill but radicalized.
I mean, why do we not consider alt right groups organizing as a type of gang?

So, at the end of the day, we have shooters and victims.

FrozenXylophone posted...

DrizztLink posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

DrizztLink posted...

Gangs and the people therein are treated differently because they are criminal by definition.

Anyone who can be jailed according to RICO aren't regular citizens.

Gang violence doesn't just end in deaths of criminals fyi.

And fire is hot.

Any other obvious points, or are you done?

So we is that a separate category?

Seems to be a mass number of people shot.

By the metric in the op, if 4 or more are injured, it qualifies.

There's an underlying cause in gang violence, recognized by the legal system, involving "legal entities." For lack of a better term. (The Crips don't pay taxes but the courts know who they are)

If I randomly murder 4 people in Starbucks, they probably aren't members of a specific legal entity that I might be targeting due to my status in a different legal entity.
---

DrizztLink posted...

If I randomly murder 4 people in Starbucks, they probably aren't members of a specific legal entity that I might be targeting due to my status in a different legal entity.

So... if a GM employee shoots up a Ford dealership, it's "gang related"?

Questionmarktarius posted...

DrizztLink posted...

If I randomly murder 4 people in Starbucks, they probably aren't members of a specific legal entity that I might be targeting due to my status in a different legal entity.

So... if a GM employee shoots up a Ford dealership, it's "gang related"?

Is GM or Ford a legally recognized gang?

This is a stupid fucking point.
---

DrizztLink posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

DrizztLink posted...

FrozenXylophone posted...

DrizztLink posted...

Gangs and the people therein are treated differently because they are criminal by definition.

Anyone who can be jailed according to RICO aren't regular citizens.

Gang violence doesn't just end in deaths of criminals fyi.

And fire is hot.

Any other obvious points, or are you done?

So we is that a separate category?

Seems to be a mass number of people shot.

By the metric in the op, if 4 or more are injured, it qualifies.

There's an underlying cause in gang violence, recognized by the legal system, involving "legal entities." (The Crips don't pay taxes but the courts know who they are)

If I randomly murder 4 people in Starbucks, they probably aren't members of a specific legal entity that I might be targeting due to my status in a different legal entity.

I guess that makes sense.

But it seems at least the media kinda cares less about innocents involved because of this labeling.
As if being around crips or related to them makes me not an innocent bystander but an accessory.

DrizztLink posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

DrizztLink posted...

If I randomly murder 4 people in Starbucks, they probably aren't members of a specific legal entity that I might be targeting due to my status in a different legal entity.

So... if a GM employee shoots up a Ford dealership, it's "gang related"?

Is GM or Ford a legally recognized gang?

This is a stupid fucking point.

Alright, let's substitute "UAW" and "Teamsters" in there.

Antifar posted...

Guns make killing easier. We may not be able to eliminate killing entirely, but I think it would be good policy to make it less easy.

Oh I don't disagree at all. We need to have a strict vetting system like Switzerland and then apply this to all current firearm owners. We need to do periodic background checks more often to make sure nothing has changed (like their mental health) and even consider their social media presence as well. Did you know Swiz law literally says that if you express violent or dangerous attitude you will not be permitted to own a firearm? Imagine if this was applied towards social media presence how quickly the number of gun owners would diminish.

Questionmarktarius posted...

DrizztLink posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

DrizztLink posted...

If I randomly murder 4 people in Starbucks, they probably aren't members of a specific legal entity that I might be targeting due to my status in a different legal entity.

So... if a GM employee shoots up a Ford dealership, it's "gang related"?

Is GM or Ford a legally recognized gang?

This is a stupid fucking point.

Alright, let's substitute "UAW" and "Teamsters" in there.

No, because those are unions and not gangs.

There are specific definitions in law.
---

FrozenXylophone posted...

I guess that makes sense.

But it seems at least the media kinda cares less about innocents involved because of this labeling.
As if being around crips or related to them makes me not an innocent bystander but an accessory.

There's a difference in the two.

If a bystander gets gunned down, it's a bad time for the gang.

If a rival gang member gets gunned down, cops tend to write it off.

If someone gets gunned down because Johnny has a tiny dick, everyone takes notice.
---