Mass Shooting Database

[Occams Barber]

Mass Shooting Database


Following the tragic Texas school shooting there are a number of animated conversations going on in CF related to the causes and potential solutions for this peculiarly American problem. As is usual on CF, much of the discussion is based on poorly informed opinion and unverified ‘facts’.

For those of you who are actually interested in the who, what, when, where,how and why of mass shooting there is now a detailed data base available covering the 172 mass shootings since 1966 with 150 separate pieces of information for each event.

The database includes detail on:

• Shooting location (workplace, school, church…)
• Gender of shooter
• Shooter Race & Ethnicity
• Guns used (handgun, rifle, shotgun...)
• Gun acquisition (legal, illegal, gift…)
• Shooter relationship to victim
• Shooter background (criminal, hate group affiliation, single…)
• Shooter’s education
• Shooter Health & Mental health
• Shooter Motivations (racism, homophobia, fame seeking…)

The database is very easy to use and has a series of filters which can be used to isolate numbers and percentages of shootings based on a single factor or combinations of factors

For example; “How many shootings were in churches and carried out by white, unemployed shooters using an illegally acquired handgun?​

If you’re interested in understanding this problem and discussing it with real information, as opposed to uninformed opinion, I strongly recommend you explore the Violence Project Database.

Most Comprehensive Mass Shooter Database - The Violence Project

VOA version (less cluttered)
VOA Special Report | History of mass shooters | Search the data (voanews.com)
OB

 

[muichimotsu]

Honestly, the issue feels far less about access and far more about fetishization of violence, to say nothing of how access isn't an issue in general when there are supposedly as many guns as there are people in America. We've gotten to a point where this isn't going to be solved unless we address how we regard guns, because that is how so many people are getting the idea that it enacts change regardless of how psychotic it is

 

[Occams Barber]

Data is only useful when analyzed and synthethized which leads to knowledge/truth

First you need the data. That is a significant problem on CF.

What do you think is causing this, and if you were president what would you do to stop it?

I'm an Australian - fortunately its not my problem. We sorted this out years ago by - essentially - removing guns from widespread public use.

OB

 

[muichimotsu]

Data is only useful when analyzed and synthethized which leads to knowledge/truth

What do you think is causing this, and if you were president what would you do to stop it?

I can't imagine anyone, even experts on this, could reduce it to one issue, not even in a primary sense of it being the major predictor, because policy changes are a stop gap in a country that has seemingly become numb to loss of life and treats freedom as more important than safety based on a misunderstanding of a quote from one of the founding fathers that's within a MUCH more mundane context and has nothing to do with gun control or any allusion to it

 

[muichimotsu]

First you need the data. That is a significant problem on CF.



I'm an Australian - fortunately its not my problem. We sorted this out years ago by - essentially - removing guns from widespread public use.

OB

And unfortunately your solution is unfeasible here, given there are supposedly almost as many guns as people, while Australia's numbers were able to be addressed because of early intervention, from what I gather.

 

[Occams Barber]

I agree - it's too late for the US. After a spate of shootings our solution was to arrange a compulsory firearm buyback in 1997/98 and change the law to limit access to guns. You cannot, for instance, acquire a gun based on a claimed need for self defence.

OB

 

[dzheremi]

And unfortunately your solution is unfeasible here, given there are supposedly almost as many guns as people, while Australia's numbers were able to be addressed because of early intervention, from what I gather.

Look up Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur massacre, if you have the stomach for it. I would be welcome correction from OB or any other Australian, if necessary, but it is my understanding that this was in large part the impetus for Australia's current gun control measures (it happened in 1996, and as OB notes above, the buyback occured 1997-98). It was a horrific event in which 35 people were murdered by a lone psychopath, and a further 23 injured, but it seems that the Australian government and Australian society at large took the right lessons from it and made their "Never again" statements actually mean that. The United States is obviously committed to other things, regardless of what its people say (and I'm one of them -- just so that this comment doesn't get dismissed as a foreigner 'not getting it').

 

[com7fy8]

The database is very easy to use

My opinion is that the killing with guns in the United States is an end-product of how individual independence and rights have long been misused by selfish people. Ones have gotten in the habit of getting the pleasures they want, or the habit of expecting them. And when ones find their treasure pleasures threatened or taken from them, they can get very nasty, and act this out in various ways.

Gun violence is just one of the ways of people doing evil in order to get their treasured pleasures, or in reaction to not getting what they demand.

We sorted this out years ago by - essentially - removing guns from widespread public use.

While I offer my analysis, above, I would say limiting availability of guns can help reduce murders. If you had a push-button system so you could pay in, say, a hundred dollars per kill, and the one you wanted dead would be killed without need for you to do more than push a button and pay . . . there would be a lot more murders, I would say.

So, yeah, I would say there are practical measures which can help cut down on murders.

Australia's numbers were able to be addressed because of early intervention, from what I gather.

How about the possibility that Aussies have had a background culture of a monarchy, in which they have revered their monarch, while Americans have had a culture enabling them to be "entitled", and then readily violent about not getting what they want - - while readily making a project of dissing public officials.

America got independence by means of bloodshed. But Australia got theirs via diplomacy, if I am correct.

So, perhaps there is some overall cultural background which could be effecting why gun control is working in Australia but not the U.S.

 

[muichimotsu]

How about the possibility that Aussies have had a background culture of a monarchy, in which they have revered their monarch, while Americans have had a culture enabling them to be "entitled", and then readily violent about not getting what they want - - while readily making a project of dissing public officials.

America got independence by means of bloodshed. But Australia got theirs via diplomacy, if I am correct.

So, perhaps there is some overall cultural background which could be effecting why gun control is working in Australia but not the U.S.

If you're correct, that one qualifier is doing a lot of heavy lifting for something I'm pretty sure an Aussie would be able to answer much more readily

You also realize Australia has around 25M people versus the 350M population in America, right? That scale alone is going to make gun control far more impractical to implement, especially when there's also the state level system in place as a "balance" against federal overreach

Not sure a monarch culture necessarily means you're going to have things better and colonialism comes in all shapes and sizes no doubt, monarchist type is merely one common flavor, while the manifest destiny attitude of America is a whole other level of delusion

 

[muichimotsu]

Look up Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur massacre, if you have the stomach for it. I would be welcome correction from OB or any other Australian, if necessary, but it is my understanding that this was in large part the impetus for Australia's current gun control measures (it happened in 1996, and as OB notes above, the buyback occured 1997-98). It was a horrific event in which 35 people were murdered by a lone psychopath, and a further 23 injured, but it seems that the Australian government and Australian society at large took the right lessons from it and made their "Never again" statements actually mean that. The United States is obviously committed to other things, regardless of what its people say (and I'm one of them -- just so that this comment doesn't get dismissed as a foreigner 'not getting it').

Yeah, by Australia's logic, we should've done something back in 2017 when 60 people were killed, that's practically 3x even the estimates now for Uvalde (which is now at 21 deaths )

The buyback idea has been attempted at implementation on city levels, iirc, but it hasn't borne out primarily because of the sheer amount of guns, tens of thousands supposedly in the ghost gun category where they aren't registered

 

[muichimotsu]

While I offer my analysis, above, I would say limiting availability of guns can help reduce murders. If you had a push-button system so you could pay in, say, a hundred dollars per kill, and the one you wanted dead would be killed without need for you to do more than push a button and pay . . . there would be a lot more murders, I would say.

So, yeah, I would say there are practical measures which can help cut down on murders.

Not sure that's a practical measure even if you passed stringent background checks because of how there isn't proper regulation of guns in the first place in America, plus people are basically able to get guns without having to go through proper channels as it is. The access to guns is distinct, if overlapping, with availability of guns overall, which is to the point that people don't always care about legality and will just steal someone else's, not unlike the situations that are far more tragic in adults not properly keeping their guns safe from a minor using it.

 

[Occams Barber]

Look up Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur massacre, if you have the stomach for it. I would be welcome correction from OB or any other Australian, if necessary, but it is my understanding that this was in large part the impetus for Australia's current gun control measures (it happened in 1996, and as OB notes above, the buyback occured 1997-98). It was a horrific event in which 35 people were murdered by a lone psychopath, and a further 23 injured, but it seems that the Australian government and Australian society at large took the right lessons from it and made their "Never again" statements actually mean that. The United States is obviously committed to other things, regardless of what its people say (and I'm one of them -- just so that this comment doesn't get dismissed as a foreigner 'not getting it').

You're right about Port Arthur being the impetus for change.

I think there's also a significant cultural difference in that Australians place a higher priority on public good as opposed to individual rights. You can see this in our preference for 'socialist' universal health care, a high basic wage and much better (compared to the US) employment conditions. It was also very obvious in differing US/Australian attitudes to Covid protection measures. We had one of the highest rates of lockdown etc. and one of the lowest Covid death rates.

We also have a more equitable spread of income and wealth although this is shifting a little towards greater inequality.

Basically Australian culture is more egalitarian.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

My opinion is that the killing with guns in the United States is an end-product of how individual independence and rights have long been misused by selfish people. Ones have gotten in the habit of getting the pleasures they want, or the habit of expecting them. And when ones find their treasure pleasures threatened or taken from them, they can get very nasty, and act this out in various ways.

Gun violence is just one of the ways of people doing evil in order to get their treasured pleasures, or in reaction to not getting what they demand.

While I offer my analysis, above, I would say limiting availability of guns can help reduce murders. If you had a push-button system so you could pay in, say, a hundred dollars per kill, and the one you wanted dead would be killed without need for you to do more than push a button and pay . . . there would be a lot more murders, I would say.

So, yeah, I would say there are practical measures which can help cut down on murders.

How about the possibility that Aussies have had a background culture of a monarchy, in which they have revered their monarch, while Americans have had a culture enabling them to be "entitled", and then readily violent about not getting what they want - - while readily making a project of dissing public officials.

America got independence by means of bloodshed. But Australia got theirs via diplomacy, if I am correct.

So, perhaps there is some overall cultural background which could be effecting why gun control is working in Australia but not the U.S.

There is a cultural difference but it isn't connected with monarchy. It's an egalitarian thing which probably got its origins in our early history as a convict settlement.

I wrote this in answer to @dzheremi a few posts back.

I think there's also a significant cultural difference in that Australians place a higher priority on public good as opposed to individual rights. You can see this in our preference for 'socialist' universal health care, a high basic wage and much better (compared to the US) employment conditions. It was also very obvious in differing US/Australian attitudes to Covid protection measures. We had one of the highest rates of lockdown etc. and one of the lowest Covid death rates.

We also have a more equitable spread of income and wealth although this is shifting a little towards greater inequality.

Basically Australian culture is more egalitarian.

OB

 

[muichimotsu]

There is a cultural difference but it isn't connected with monarchy. It's an egalitarian thing which probably got its origins in our early history as a convict settlement.

I wrote this in answer to @dzheremi a few posts back.


OB

Also, that just reminds me that BOTH U.S. and Australia were British colonies effectively, so the monarchy aspect is more incidental, since both ultimately sought independence, though Australia seems to remain a Commonwealth, which is more a formality than anything that has direct power like for most of Ireland and Scotland.

 

[Robban]

I suspect hardworking people do not have time or desire to go around taking lives
of others.

But idle minds can be a danger, would reckon.

 

[Occams Barber]

I suspect hardworking people do not have time or desire to go around taking lives
of others.

But idle minds can be a danger, would reckon.

This is a table of intentional homicides per 100,000 people for 14 developed countries.

If your theory about hardworking people not taking lives is correct, it appears the US is one of laziest countries in the West, since it has, by a huge margin, the highest rate of homicides.

Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - OECD members, Australia, Canada, Belgium, France, United States, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, Switzerland, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Japan | Data (worldbank.org)

 

[Robban]

This is a table of intentional homicides per 100,000 people for 14 developed countries.

If your theory about hardworking people not taking lives is correct, it appears the US is one of laziest countries in the West, since it has, by a huge margin, the highest rate of homicides.

View attachment 316376
Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - OECD members, Australia, Canada, Belgium, France, United States, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, Switzerland, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Japan | Data (worldbank.org)

Well, mass shooting is a lazy way of taking lives, compared to using a sword for example.

Though Americans are not lazy, example,
building of Liberty ships during WW2.

More like job security is lacking in USA,

here specially in the sixties you may not have become a millionare,

but you knew when you went home on Friday your job would be waiting for you

on Monday and you could be pretty certain that it was yours until pension.

But good things don't last, as the saying goes, unfortunely today it is getting more like America,
waking up and hoping the agency has work for you.

Take away that security from before, where one could dream and plan,

it will create a restlessness and even irritation.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, mass shooting is a lazy way of taking lives, compared to using a sword for example.

Though Americans are not lazy, example,
building of Liberty ships during WW2.

More like job security is lacking in USA,

here specially in the sixties you may not have become a millionare,

but you knew when you went home on Friday your job would be waiting for you

on Monday and you could be pretty certain that it was yours until pension.

But good things don't last, as the saying goes, unfortunely today it is getting more like America,
waking up and hoping the agency has work for you.

Take away that security from before, where one could dream and plan,

it will create a restlessness and even irritation.

You're basically just pointing out that late stage capitalism is creating a situation where people resort to violence because they feel dispossessed from any real agency, no sense of upward mobility and essentially just want to take it out on anyone even if it makes no impact on corporations that will continue to have their power unless congress has some integrity and enacts anti trust laws and regulations with teeth

 

[Robban]

You're basically just pointing out that late stage capitalism is creating a situation where people resort to violence because they feel dispossessed from any real agency, no sense of upward mobility and essentially just want to take it out on anyone even if it makes no impact on corporations that will continue to have their power unless congress has some integrity and enacts anti trust laws and regulations with teeth

Well, yes, more or less.

Trade unions in their beginning were much needed and did much in improving

working conditions, all was going well until something happened,

some say because Marxism had crept into the unions,

that maybe so, from what I have observed the situation had become unsustainable

for companies and firms to exist given how they were burdened in so many ways.

I think it was in the seventies if you turned on the radio,

it was this and this company are shutting down or moving to another country.

It was like a bowling alley, knocking down skittles, boom, boom, boom.

A bad balance, today for example is ascension day, a paid holiday.

Besides all the other paid holidays, and annual holiday, and nothing produced.

Yet it seems as if companies were the milkcow.

Consider,
the highest form of charity is providing people with a job, so they don't go hungry and have to beg.

There has to be some form of balance.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, yes, more or less.

Trade unions in their beginning were much needed and did much in improving

working conditions, all was going well until something happened,

some say because Marxism had crept into the unions,

that maybe so, from what I have observed the situation had become unsustainable

for companies and firms to exist given how they were burdened in so many ways.

I think it was in the seventies if you turned on the radio,

it was this and this company are shutting down or moving to another country.

It was like a bowling alley, knocking down skittles, boom, boom, boom.

A bad balance, today for example is ascension day, a paid holiday.

Besides all the other paid holidays, and annual holiday, and nothing produced.

Yet it seems as if companies were the milkcow.

Consider,
the highest form of charity is providing people with a job, so they don't go hungry and have to beg.

There has to be some form of balance.

When the goal is profit above all else and not balancing the needs of people in a constantly changing economic climate, it's going to seem like the people's needs are the problem if companies are being thoroughly selfish

If you literally starve without the job, it isn't charity anymore, it's bordering on exploitation based on the idea you have no other recourse.

The balance is recognizing that if companies don't pay their fair share, we have less resources to work with in society from their work. When they hoard their profits, it doesn't always work in the way some apologists would suggest, because they can funnel those profits right back into themselves and have no regulation on them depending on the nature of the charity