• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)

Hercules56 said:
According to very poor & false data.
Click to expand...

If someone shot up a family gathering you were at, wounded 20 but only killed three, I suppose you wouldn't consider that a mass shooting? By your definition, it wouldn't be. Just an annoying day or something?

Seriously, man. Four people have to die before you even acknowledge that a mass of people were shot up?
 
Hercules56 said:
According to Mother Jones and the US Department of Justice, there have only been 12 mass-shootings in the USA in 2023.
Click to expand...

According to the rest of the planet, there have been dozens more. Forgive me for not giving a **** what Mother Jones thinks, or the DOJ who wants very badly for things to seem not quite as psychotic here.

Mass killing or mass murder, fine. 3 or four fatalities qualifies. But mass shooting? Bullets wounding American bodies is enough to count.
 
Thermal said:
According to the rest of the planet, there have been dozens more. Forgive me for not giving a **** what Mother Jones thinks, or the DOJ who wants very badly for things to seem not quite as psychotic here.

Mass killing or mass murder, fine. 3 or four fatalities qualifies. But mass shooting? Bullets wounding American bodies is enough to count.
Click to expand...

OK well I go by the definition that Mother Jones, the DOJ, USA Today and the Washington Post follow. A shooting event where 4+ people are shot & killed, not including the shooter.
 
Hercules56 said:
According to very poor & false data.
Click to expand...

According to their definition of mass shooting. You can pretend the problem of people shooting at others to kill them is not as bad a problem, as others made out, till you consider that in the UK and other countries, someone with a gun who goes on a shooting spree, even if they hit no one, is a major issue, a serious incident and likely to result in them going to prison for a long time.
 
Norman Alexander said:
No, that's a mass MURDER, not a mass SHOOTING. Are you being deliberately dense?
Click to expand...

Fine. The Washington Post, Every Town for Gun Safety & Mother Jones define "mass-shooting" as a shooting event where 4+ people are shot & killed, not including the shooter. Let's go by that rule.
 
Hercules56 said:
OK well I go by the definition that Mother Jones, the DOJ, USA Today and the Washington Post follow. A shooting event where 4+ people are shot & killed, not including the shooter.
Click to expand...

Again: 3 people you care about killed and 20 others wounded by a gunman. Not a mass shooting?

It's a good barometer to evaluate whether your definition is bull **** or not.
 
Thermal said:
Again: 3 people you care about killed and 20 others wounded by a gunman. Not a mass shooting?

It's a good barometer to evaluate whether your definition is bull **** or not.
Click to expand...

So everyone's definition is bull **** if it doesn't fit your agenda?

Huh.
 
Hercules56 said:
Fine. The Washington Post, Every Town for Gun Safety & Mother Jones define "mass-shooting" as a shooting event where 4+ people are shot & killed, not including the shooter. Let's go by that rule.
Click to expand...

Abso- ******* -lutely NOT. No matter how many sources use a dishonest and frankly stupid definition, WE are under no obligation to use it.
 
Thermal said:
Abso- ******* -lutely NOT. No matter how many sources use a dishonest and frankly stupid definition, WE are under no obligation to use it.
Click to expand...

Its the same definition used since the Columbine massacre, up until Obama got into office. Then one guy decided to change the definition.
 
Hercules56 said:
Its the same definition used since the Columbine massacre, up until Obama got into office. Then one guy decided to change the definition.
Click to expand...

Yes, because someone got bright enough to realize that you can have a mass shooting event with no fatalities at all. Real stroke of brilliance, that.
 
Thermal said:
No, just foolish ones. And you haven't answered the question. I suppose the silence speaks loudly enough.
Click to expand...

So the DoJ, Mother Jones, and the Washington Post are foolish but YOU got it right?

What makes you more informed or intelligent than they are?
 
Hercules56 said:
So the DoJ, Mother Jones, and the Washington Post are foolish but YOU got it right?

What makes you more informed or intelligent than they are?
Click to expand...

Because I understand meaning of the English words "shooting" and "killing", and their respective differences. It's not that complicated.
 
Personally, I would call a mass shooting as having more than one person killed or injured in an incident. Rules out lone suicides and brings it in line with the rest of the world.

Because 4-plus dead per incident is such a US-specific and arbitrary number. It is set solely to allow the US gun nuts to say "Look! There is not really a problem at all!"
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Yes, because someone got bright enough to realize that you can have a mass shooting event with no fatalities at all. Real stroke of brilliance, that.
Click to expand...

"Mass-shooting", is (or was) a very specific and unique social phenomenon that required study and strategies to try to prevent. Random shootings, done by often mentally ill or disallusioned individuals, targeting random public spaces with heavily armed individuals often wearing tactical gear. Lengthy notes explaining their mindset and or purpose for the killing are often left.

However, none if this is true now that the sociological geniuses have decided to greatly expand and water down the definition of "mass-shooter". Why did they do it? To artificially inflate the numbers to hopefully justify and achieve stronger national gun control laws (ABSOLUTE FAILURE).

Meanwhile, we can't study the REAL mass-shooters cuz the event is no longer limited to a few truly sick and troubled individuals. Now your average gang-banger thug who does a drive-by can be considered a mass-shooter.

Nice job. Really helped society deal with this issue.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Because in American parlance, a shooting means a gun death. Whereas in the rest of the world, it means a gun was fired at someone.
Click to expand...

Since we are mostly talking about events in the USA, nothing wrong with letting America choose the meaning of the term.

Otherwise any shooting where 1+ person is shot, is a mass-shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom