useful link - mass shootings

[The_Squid]

Here is a very useful map of where all the mass shootings in the USA have taken place so far in 2016.

There are 110 mass shootings mapped out in 2016.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/22/map-mass-shootings/FdIJGmhzcghwQUuXw1U67L/story.html

They're not all newsworthy of course... it's just too common to make the front pages much of the time.

http://www.vice.com/read/there-were-ten-mass-shootings-in-america-this-week

"There's a large body of literature that examines the newsworthiness of homicides in general," Schildkraut told me. "The idea of a worthy victim is really what's driving the coverage."

Specifically, victims who are female, especially young or old, killed in wealthier areas, or killed by complete strangers tend to get more attention. Those trends hold, the professor said, for mass shootings as well, with the additional factor that a higher body count than the norm also drives coverage.

"The question I think news producers ask themselves is, 'Why is the audience going to care?'" Schildkraut added. That is to say, news outlets consider how much a mass shooting deviates from other such attacks, drawing special attention. But they also consider, the professor argued, what national audiences will feel is both sympathetic and relatable—what risks resonate with them.

American politicians keep lying about what actually works to reduce gun violence.

http://www.voanews.com/content/australia-gun-violence/3307014.html

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull marked the anniversary by saying U.S. gun violence showed why Australia would keep its laws intact.

The rate of U.S. gun deaths shows "what happens when you have very little if any restrictions on the purchase of weapons like that", he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Edited April 28, 2016 by The_Squid

[Shady]

It's pretty much a useless link as the site uses 5 different definitions of a mass shooting and combines it into one map.

[waldo]

It's pretty much a useless link as the site uses 5 different definitions of a mass shooting and combines it into one map.

no - the map is based upon a single definition of mass shooting; specifically: "a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people are shot, regardless of whether they were killed"

a most powerful presentation showcasing the devastating American gun culture! USA! USA! USA!

.

[Shady]

No, they specifically state that their map satisfies 5 definitions of a mass shooting. Regardless, if you wanna confiscate guns from legal gun owners. Amend the constitution. Otherwise, talk means nothing.

[waldo]

No, they specifically state that their map satisfies 5 definitions of a mass shooting. Regardless, if you wanna confiscate guns from legal gun owners. Amend the constitution. Otherwise, talk means nothing.

no - as provided, the map presents details relative to the single definition of mass shooting provided; again: "a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people are shot, regardless of whether they were killed"

there's been no reference to, no discussion on/around gun confiscation... I appreciate that map is most disconcerting to pro-gunners like yourself... notwithstanding your U.S. Constitution reach as a non-American!

.

[Guest]

One mass shooting per day on average in the US?! Wow, that's unbelievably sad and frustrating that so many just shrug it off as normal or inevitable. Come on Republicans is NRA money for votes really more important than American lives?

[Shady]

no - as provided, the map presents details relative to the single definition of mass shooting provided; again: "a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people are shot, regardless of whether they were killed"

there's been no reference to, no discussion on/around gun confiscation... I appreciate that map is most disconcerting to pro-gunners like yourself... notwithstanding your U.S. Constitution reach as a non-American!

.

The reference to Australia is directly related to gun confiscation and banning.

[Shady]

One mass shooting per day on average in the US?! Wow, that's unbelievably sad and frustrating that so many just shrug it off as normal or inevitable. Come on Republicans is NRA money for votes really more important than American lives?

No, the constitution is the most important. Besides, the way they define mass shooting is completely objective.

[eyeball]

Will the right to bear arms include space blasters and ray guns? Surely the framers would have included them - an arm is an arm is an arm right like the law is the law yadda yadda?

[Big Guy]

It looks like we may have another example of mass killings and a resolution to the American Republican Trump problem. There is a petition of over 20,000 names to allow guns into the Republican Convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/guns-petition-republican-national-convention/

I hope it passes and I hope the convention is covered dead live.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

One mass shooting per day on average in the US?! Wow, that's unbelievably sad and frustrating that so many just shrug it off as normal or inevitable.

Not unbelievable at all....as 82 people die from "shootings" each day on average in the USA. Many more are injured. "Mass shootings" are only a small percentage of those. It is normal and inevitable.

[Guest]

It looks like we may have another example of mass killings and a resolution to the American Republican Trump problem. There is a petition of over 20,000 names to allow guns into the Republican Convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/guns-petition-republican-national-convention/

I hope it passes and I hope the convention is covered dead live.

I'd like to see a bunch of guys wearing shemaghs heading in there packing.

[eyeball]

There is a petition of over 20,000 names to allow guns into the Republican Convention.

Hunh. You mean they're not allowed? How can that be?

[waldo]

It is normal and inevitable.

given the U.S. gun culture, yes... most certainly, inevitable! But definitely not normal within civilized country norms.

.

[waldo]

The reference to Australia is directly related to gun confiscation and banning.

that OP reference was with respect to actions that actually proved a resulting reduction in gun related death/violence. Australia chose to initiate the banned sales of certain semi-auto and self-loading rifles/shotguns... and brought forward a gun buyback program that ended up taking in about 1/5 of the estimated guns in Australia. Please advise how the following results don't fit with your pro-gunner sentiments:

.

[Smoke]

One mass shooting per day on average in the US?! Wow, that's unbelievably sad and frustrating that so many just shrug it off as normal or inevitable. Come on Republicans is NRA money for votes really more important than American lives?

So it's only republicans that own guns in the US. Wow didn't know that.

[waldo]

So it's only republicans that own guns in the US. Wow didn't know that.

is that the U.S. public Republican... or the U.S. governing Republican? Let me help ya out a bit... I'll offer up this example general public survey and ya'll come back with something that speaks to positions held/taken by U.S. governing Republicans - yes?

.

[waldo]

can anything speak to U.S. gun culture more precisely than... 'Ted Cruz & machine-gun bacon'?

.

[cybercoma]

No, the constitution is the most important. Besides, the way they define mass shooting is completely objective.

Suggest a "better" working definition of mass shooting then. Explain why it's better in relation to the limitations of the definition that they use. Frankly, I don't think their definition goes far enough. It's pretty conservative to limit it to 4 or more people shot, considering someone could murder three people and it wouldn't be a mass shooting by their definition. However, they were liberal with the definition in another way, by including attempted unsuccessful murders. In any case, I'm all ears. What's a better definition to you? Edited April 29, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Not unbelievable at all....as 82 people die from "shootings" each day on average in the USA. Many more are injured. "Mass shootings" are only a small percentage of those. It is normal and inevitable.

It is neither normal nor inevitable, as every civilized nation on earth stands to show.

[Shady]

that OP reference was with respect to actions that actually proved a resulting reduction in gun related death/violence. Australia chose to initiate the banned sales of certain semi-auto and self-loading rifles/shotguns... and brought forward a gun buyback program that ended up taking in about 1/5 of the estimated guns in Australia. Please advise how the following results don't fit with your pro-gunner sentiments:

img=http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f-1200-900/australia-gun-deaths-bi.png

.

I would certainly agree that after confiscation, incidents dropped. Edited May 1, 2016 by Charles Anthony
dropped image down to link

[Shady]

Suggest a "better" working definition of mass shooting then. Explain why it's better in relation to the limitations of the definition that they use. Frankly, I don't think their definition goes far enough. It's pretty conservative to limit it to 4 or more people shot, considering someone could murder three people and it wouldn't be a mass shooting by their definition. However, they were liberal with the definition in another way, by including attempted unsuccessful murders. In any case, I'm all ears. What's a better definition to you?

So would you characterize gang violence as a mass shooting? It doesn't really fit into what people consider a real mass shooting to be. But you're right, it's completely subjective. They should also break down mass shootings commited with illegal guns vs legal guns. Illegal gun owners vs legal gun owners. But they don't.

[cybercoma]

So would you characterize gang violence as a mass shooting? It doesn't really fit into what people consider a real mass shooting to be. But you're right, it's completely subjective. They should also break down mass shootings commited with illegal guns vs legal guns. Illegal gun owners vs legal gun owners. But they don't.

Help me understand how you want to operationalize this. What I get from your post is that you want to define mass shootings as only those that happen with illegal firearms. Am I understanding that right?

[bush_cheney2004]

It is neither normal nor inevitable, as every civilized nation on earth stands to show.

Empirical data says it is normal and inevitable, just as stabbings and beatings are in Canada given firearms restrictions.

[eyeball]

Ah, so now Hispanic lives don't matter either.

That's useful to know.

Edited April 29, 2016 by eyeball