My emphasis. ALMOST 3 times greater? Crazy.in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present
There's a sense from your response that the article is attempting to imply something.
I didn't really get that.
But a lot of folks here made salient points, for sure.
The first person I personally knew who committed suicide didn’t use a firearm. A second possible suicide didn’t as well. I think I’ve known exactly two who did use a firearm to commit suicide. That’s close to US statistics of methods used.Suicide is horrible - the act is the issue more so than the instrumentation. Death by asphyxiation is the second highest method of ending a life - shall we regulate rope?
Hemp? Rope these days is more often made of synthetic material.Hemp is regulated. Guns not so much my friend
That sounds almost like a Calvinism vs Arminianism argument. The actual measure is the percentage of who can legally use a firearm and own to commit a crime to those who can legally use and own a firearm yet who don’t. You have to make that distinction to filter out repeat offenders, who in the US are already prohibited from owning a firearm.The rubric of "good guy with a gun" is always really convinient though because EVERY gun own is a good guy with a gun until he commits an illegal act. Then he's suddenly a bad guy who should never had had a gun because they don't use it responsibly.
Yeah, you're probably right. It's been quite a while since I bought either.Hemp? Rope these days is more often made of synthetic material.
As to which is more heavily regulated, hemp rope fiber or firearms, first try to buy a hemp rope in the US, then try to buy a firearm.
Link?Most folk aren't addressing the idea that many of the shootings are happenning in certain places.
View attachment 324078
Now texas looks to be a pretty busy place (or at least a place with some big incidents). There are no gun free zones and gun ownership is high there.
I don't have the time to look too closely into the relationship between "gun free zones", "states with large numbers of mass shootings" and "where bare handed take downs occurred".
Out of curiosity, I checked Atlanta, doing a search of Atlanta mass shooting 2022. One story that came up was a "targeted" shooting in August that killed 2, injured 1. Another was 11/27/22 where one person was killed and five injured after an "altercation."Most folk aren't addressing the idea that many of the shootings are happenning in certain places.
View attachment 324078
Now texas looks to be a pretty busy place (or at least a place with some big incidents). There are no gun free zones and gun ownership is high there.
I don't have the time to look too closely into the relationship between "gun free zones", "states with large numbers of mass shootings" and "where bare handed take downs occurred".
"Mass shooting" data definitions are provided every time I've seen a data set is presented. They don't differentiate past data based on motivation, or which degree of murder. Why should "our understanding" be relevant when the data set has a definition provided?Out of curiosity, I checked Atlanta, doing a search of Atlanta mass shooting 2022. One story that came up was a "targeted" shooting in August that killed 2, injured 1. Another was 11/27/22 where one person was killed and five injured after an "altercation."
Question: Do these meet the definition of mass shooting as most here understand it, or is it something else? Neither seems to have been random. By the definition used in this map, a hit in the 1970s that took two people I knew would be categorized as a mass shooting. So would the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.
It is a type of bias known as spin. If people think that mass shooting means a random event, including those that are non-random presents an inaccurate picture. Do you consider the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre a mass shooting, even though it was a mob hit?"Mass shooting" data definitions are provided every time I've seen a data set is presented. They don't differentiate past data based on motivation, or which degree of murder. Why should "our understanding" be relevant when the data set has a definition provided?
"Our understandings" is a phrase that basically refers to bias. Having a problem with how to define "mass shooting" seems more like a desire to halt discussions as the dozens of different definitions make no meaningful difference; so long as the definitions are applied equally across the board.
Your maps shows two circles at Atlanta. I did a search for Atlanta mass shooting 2022, and the two cited came up. Is that problematic?Just to clarify though: There were MORE than just 2 mass shootings in Atlanta in 2022 so far right? You just chose those 2 to illustrate your point right?
You're complicating it and allowing your personal biases to creep in.It is a type of bias known as spin. If people think that mass shooting means a random event, including those that are non-random presents an inaccurate picture. Do you consider the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre a mass shooting, even though it was a mob hit?
Not at all. Atlanta has always been characterized as a hyperviolent place. I'd expect a higher number is all.Your maps shows two circles at Atlanta. I did a search for Atlanta mass shooting 2022, and the two cited came up. Is that problematic?
So you do consider the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre a mass shooting?You're complicating it and allowing your personal biases to creep in.
Does it meet the definition as given in the study?
Not at all. Atlanta has always been characterized as a hyperviolent place. I'd expect a higher number is all.
As I've mentioned. Most data sets have their own rubric to define what a mass shooter is. There doesn't seem to be a set standard. For the purposes of one chart, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre would be considered a mass shooting; perhaps on another chart, it would not.So you do consider the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre a mass shooting?
As to violence in Atlanta: You can have violence, including murder, without multiple shootings involved. And with that word comes the point that looks like spin to me: mass shootings to me has the connotations for random shootings. Multiple shootings might superficially seem the same, but I think connotated something that isn't random. The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre was a hit with multiple shootings. Technically so is the one I remember from the 1970s that had two involved.
Anyway, if you have a high murder rate and rate of violent crime (and I haven't checked the violent crime data as I type this), you can what you've called hyperviolent without mass shootings or multiple shootings.
I found this from CBS News: Murder map: Deadliest U.S. cities
Atlanta is listed as 22. But note the example: the shootings at three massage parlors in 2021. That I would categorize as a mass shooting, and that had eight killed total. Checking on this introduced another term shooting spree.
That gives up three terms to hash out:
Mass shooting.
Multiple shooting.
Shooting spree.
I have a feeling that the definitions of each has a bearing on this. Such as that hit from the 1970s I recall that involved two I knew. It wasn't random. How would we categorize this?
The meaning of words and terms is hardly navel gazing. All words have shades of meaning that carry specific connotations. Poets run into this all the time. So do writers and those in advertising. The choice of words can and has been used to manipulate opinion. This is why the meaning of terms here is important. If most take the term mass shooting to mean a random event, then using the term to mean a non-random event is imparting spin on the topic. If people fear mass shootings more than gang violence, characterizing a gang related shooting as a mass shooting might sell newspapers and attract viewers and clicks more than straight-up saying gang related shooting.As I've mentioned. Most data sets have their own rubric to define what a mass shooter is. There doesn't seem to be a set standard. For the purposes of one chart, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre would be considered a mass shooting; perhaps on another chart, it would not.
My point was simply: I use the definition provided in the data set as to whether something is considered a mass shooting.
What isn't necessary is navel gazing what what is the BEST definition that suits EVERYONE'S preconceptions of what is heard when we say the word "mass shooter".
Because doing so allows personal bias to float into the conversation.
By ANY rubric for mass shootings, America has a gun violence problem compared to other developed nations; it doesn't disappear once it changes from 1 death and 3 injuries to 4 deaths and at least 2 injuries.
There is no gun free zone in America. There are more gun then Citizen in America.Link?
Parkland shooting - gun free zone
Colorado shooting - gun free zone
Ok. While America is stuck on parsing out their terms the rest of the world looks on in horror as they keep slaughtering each other.The meaning of words and terms is hardly navel gazing. All words have shades of meaning that carry specific connotations. Poets run into this all the time. So do writers and those in advertising. The choice of words can and has been used to manipulate opinion. This is why the meaning of terms here is important. If most take the term mass shooting to mean a random event, then using the term to mean a non-random event is imparting spin on the topic. If people fear mass shootings more than gang violence, characterizing a gang related shooting as a mass shooting might sell newspapers and attract viewers and clicks more than straight-up saying gang related shooting.
Now, why is this important? Because, I think, when most people fear violence, they fear random violence because most people don't belong to gangs and aren't involved in criminal dealings. Gang activities and criminal dealings do seem to involve a higher rate of violence than with the general public, or at least that's the perception. That's why I'm making a distinction here.
I may have already mentioned it, but just like I knew four suicide victims, I've known four murder victims. Two where those killed in that hit in the 1970s. Another was a strangulation, The last was either a strangulation or drowning. Were the two not killed by a firearm any less dead?
There is no gun free zone in America. There are more gun then Citizen in America.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?