Another mass shooting

Yep.
What's the definition used by your source and how does it more accurately reflect "mass shootings" than the one in mine?

 

I just explained it. Your source admits they look only at high profile cases, like school shootings and they exclude all other mass shootings.

Why is shooting not a shooting unless its done by some mental nutcase and its high profile and all over the news? That is one type of mass-shooting and it excluded all other mass shootings. Your source admits it, and say is is a "specific phenomenon".

What do you call an incident when a "crip" shoots five "bloods" in s drive-by shooting? Is it not a shooting, or mass shooting? Most non-partisan people would agree that if firearm was used, then it was shooting, and if five people were shot, then its a mass shooting.

 

As I thought: You just want to include as many shootings as you can.
Compare your "mass shootings" in the last four years to "mass shootings" 1989-1992.

 

Yup, more guns, that'll fix it.

 

No. It is not what I want. If its a shooting, with multiple victims, then I call it for what it is. Anything else would be dishonest. At least your source admits it by clarifying their definition (count only high profile mass killings, which is ONE way to look at it), which is not something you are willing to do. You just want to pretend there were only 5 shootings in US per year. You are only fooling yourself.

I asked you twice what you would an incident when a "crip" shoots five "bloods" in s drive-by shooting, and you won't answer because you want to look at only high profile cases to hide from the reality.

 

Uh-huh.
Compare your "mass shootings" in the last four years to "mass shootings" 1989-1992

 

They've been commonplace for a long time. Its just that for most of that time, the mass shootings were going on in impoverished minority areas and were associated with gang/drug violence. For the most part, they still are. These mass shootings are less useful for the current mainstream narrative. The ones that get media attention are the ones the establishment thinks will be useful to push 'ban more guns', 'get more cops', 'control more of society' narratives. Those narratives used to turn people off, so they weren't pushed as hard. As they gain ground, they push harder. Mass shootings are not more common. Mass shootings that fit the propaganda narrative are more common, mostly just because that narrative is more accepted.

 

A decidedly better solution than "gun free zones".

 

Oh look, there was yet another one today...

https://www.foxnews.com/us/knoxvill...multiple-people-hurt-including-cop-police-say

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/12/us/knoxville-school-shooting/index.html

 

No answer........oh, well.... Maybe the incident described in the OP was not a "real shooting" either unless it qualifies as "high profile" case.

True. They love the "high profile" shootings, and some liberal MSM like Mother Jones (pushed by Tog-6) refuse to even count any other type of mass shootings.

Let's see if Mother Jones qualifies it as 'real shooting'.

 

Uh-huh.
Compare your "mass shootings" in the last four years to "mass shootings" 1989-1992

 

Still no answer......? Dodging questions by asking questions of your own is a weak tactic.

You are using Bill Clintons (unwittily) argument for gun bans. He also talked only about high profile shootings in order to argue the ban was a success. The truth is that the cocaine wars and the crack epidemic during Reagan / Clinton era resulted in a very high number of mass shootings, but no one cared (like you don't care today), because they were not high profile incidents where the victims were kids, or white Walmart shoppers. As a matter of fact, until 2020 the murder rate in US had been cut to half since the crack epidemic years. Year 2020 aka 'the year of Trump' saw a massive hike in homicides.

 

When you can compare your "mass shootings" of the last 5 years to the "mass shootings of 1988-1992, let me know.
Absent some frame of reference, your numbers do not mean anything.

 

I just explained it, and you still have not answered my question. Why the dodge? Why is the example in OP a "mass shooting", while the same amount of victims in the gang-land is not?

Just FYI, whether or not the numbers mean anything to you is 100% irrelevant. Everyone can see that you are using the old liberal tactic of talking only about high profile shootings, to make their case against rifles which they call "assault weapons". They also use your argument to stress the point that "mass shooters" are typically white, which is true only in case of high profile incidents.

 

About 40 people are killed a day on average by a gun. Another 65 a day use one to commit suicide.

In this post you can see that these numbers are pretty consistent over the past 20 years:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ere-we-go-again.586320/page-4#post-1072531446

Over in that thread I attempted several times to point out that banning handguns would save far more lives than banning rifles. This fairly new style of AR type "pistol" used in the shooting that prompted the OP over in that thread that have somehow been approved as legal is a conversation all of itself in the debate. I've got a buddy at work that owns a freaking FN P90 ffs.

I'm open to the idea of imposing Japanese or Swiss levels of gun control in the US, but it is not even close to my top concerns that I'd like to see in areas of improvement by the federal government.

General Health Care reform is far more important to me. US federal finance reform, particularly with respect to reliance on deficit spending and the float obtained by the current worldwide acceptance of the US dollar as a global reserve currency versus the somewhat staggering national debt is more important to me. Defense programs like the F35 and the disastrous Ford class carrier are of greater concern to me.

240 people die on average everyday from diabetes, so I don't really care much about gun control when we have people unable to get insulin and a sugar lobby so powerful that it prevents basic labeling on food products from listing the amount of sugar in the product. This may seem like a silly thing to bring up in the context of far more entertaining and dramatic gun violence issues, other than the fact that far more people die from diabetes every year than firearm related deaths.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+documentary

Heart disease and cancer are way more deadly than guns and there are many contributing factors that could be better regulated to reduce the far more significant number of deaths from these causes than regulating guns more.

 

It would be in the local news.

The news doesn't care unless it has a racial angle.

Or unless it's extreme enough that it could be pushed to push gun control.

 

Yawn.
Absent some frame of reference, your numbers do not mean anything.

 

~10k firearm related murders/year. That's 27/day.
~20k suicides by firearm / year. That's 55/day.
~100k defensive gun uses per year. That's 274/day.

Even if true, you can't. It violates the constitution.

In terms of lives lost to (x) there are indeed much bigger concerns than firearms.

 

Well that and getting rid of these existing gun laws and restrictions.

 

Hard floors and slippery bathtubs can be deadly for the elderly.

 

Mass shootings are an awful common occurrence and one wonders if darker forces are at work such as ransomware .

 

The sooner we all can accept that, the better.

 

For those who are interested in facts, and not partisan spin and word games. Here are the murder rates and how it has improved since 1990s. It has been cut to half, and that includes cities like Chicago. Many of the killings in the early 1990s were related to the crack epidemic, and many of those killings had multiple victims. People can call them mass-shootings, or the game of trivia or whatever they want. It does not matter which words we choose. Clinton (like TOG-6) talked about high profile cases where AR-15 was used, because he was making a case for his gun bans. Later he bragged about making a major impact to mass-shootings, because he was still talking only about high profile cases which had dropped. The truth was that the number of people killed in such incidents had dropped, but the number was insignificant compared to the total number of people killed by firearms. The problem with that argument is that vast majority of mass shootings are not high profile, and AR-15s are not involved. So, to talk about "mass shootings" while referring only to a handful of high profile shootings while excluding 95% of other mass shootings is one way to look at it, but horribly misleading when it is sold as the "whole truth". It is 5% of the truth.

 

Oh look - the context I asked for.
So...while there are significantly more mass shootings under your definition, they have fallen considerably and represent a tiny percentage of the total overall murder rate.
Thus, while mass shooting, as you define them, may have risen since 2014, in the overall scheme of things, that rise means little to nothing.

 

It has been my point all along. The problem is that you dont see the points because you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Your liberal definition excludes 95% of them. Instead of playing with words, you can just look at the numbers, and they suggest:

• Homicide rate has been in steady decline since the crack fueled peak in the 1990s
• Clinton tried to use your definition of 'mass shooting' in order to credit his gun bans for the decline
• Number of people shot by AR-15 high-profile mass shootings was never that high, so even though there was a decline, it was insignificant compared to the total number of people killed aka Clinton's argument misled people (just like yours)
• Mass-shootings (4 or more victims) are still common (1000+ in past 2 years), but most are not high-profile so people dont talk about them
• Mass-shootings regardless of definition has always been a percentage of all homicides (not majority)
• 5000 Americans dying of mass-shootings in 2 years is not "little to nothing". 3000+ Americans died in 9/11 to put it in perspective. There were 10 000 gun homicides in 2019, so 2500 in mass shootings would be 25%, and that is a big number.
• Year 2020 was a big step backwards in reduction of crime / homicides
• Trying to sell high-profile incidents as the whole picture is dishonest
• There isn't much we can do about gang related mass shootings, except somehow prevent more people to stay away from gangs in the first place. Education?