• Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    111
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    GVA thinks someone stubbing a toe at a firing range is a mass shooting so whatever

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      62
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s an exaggeration, but you’re not far off.

      They count any shooting with 4 or more injured as a “mass shooting”.

      I doubt that most people hear the phrase “mass shooting” and think “People at a party having too much to drink, get in an argument, the argument turns into a fight, guns are drawn, and 2 people on one side get shot and 2 people on the other side get shot.”

      Example from my own back yard so to speak… 3 dudes from Texas show up for a marijuana buy from two brothers in Oregon. Buy goes bad, 2 Texans are killed, both brothers are killed, one dude walks away.

      https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/06/two-portland-brothers-two-marijuana-buyers-die-in-gun-battle-during-attempted-drug-ripoff.html

      GVA DOES count that as a mass shooting. I don’t, for the simple reason that while those people were armed, and DID end up shooting 4 or more people, nobody went down there with guns with the INTENTION of shooting a bunch of people.

      For me, and I wish more people defined it this way, a mass shooting is when one or more individuals show up armed in a populated area with the express intention of shooting as many people as possible.

      That sort of shooting is FAR rarer. But nobody makes money off keeping people scared if that’s the definition.

      • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        bruh 4 people injured or killed in a single incident absolutely is a mass shooting. I’m trying to get my head around how you are downplaying this

        • Obi@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The standards in America are fucking crazy. “Yeah bro my cousin was buying some weed, next thing you know 4 people shot dead, but that shouldn’t count” lmao.

          • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            35
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            lol the fact it’s just a casual story about a drug shoot out with 4 dead with a direct connection to OP and OP doesn’t think that’s weird is confusing as fuck to me

            • Obi@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right? I literally have never heard of anyone getting shot even if I count friends of friends of friends x10. And I spent half my adult life in connections with very dodgy circles.

              Their “just another normal shooting” story would make national news for weeks if it happened here.

              • telllos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Got really sad this summer, relatives from the US visited and we went to the lake to do Stand up paddle. Upon seeing the life veste, I heard, looks like the vest we wear for school shooting drill, :/

          • telllos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, It’s so wild. Like, they are so delusional.

            Let’s push back the classification of mass shooting to lower the number. Ok, so we need one shooter and at least 10 dead. If people are only injured it shouldn’t count. And the victim can’t be criminal or have a criminal background. If drug or alcohol, not a mass shooting.

        • Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gang shootings make up the vast majority of “mass shootings”

          These gang members are the very definition of criminal, they know their actions are highly illegal. Making more guns illegal will not stop them

          • Balex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Huh? Are you saying that the white school/mall shooters weren’t aware that killing people is illegal?

              • HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                this is the most idiotic reply I’ve seen on lemmy

                Idk, I kind of like this one:

                Gang shootings make up the vast majority of “mass shootings”

                These gang members are the very definition of criminal, they know their actions are highly illegal. Making more guns illegal will not stop them

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          Super simple, look at the example I cited of a drug buy gone bad. That’s NOT a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive counts it as such even though it happened in a private home, not a public place, the shooters and victims involved were committing another crime when the shooting happened, and they were all there for the explicit purpose of committing that other crime, they didn’t go there to shoot each other.

          If you can’t tell the difference between that and some psycho turning up in a grocery store to shoot as many people as possible, I don’t know what to tell you. The circumstances are completely different.

          • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            the difference is intent, not outcome. 4 people shot. mass shooting. don’t care why they shot each other. any other country doesn’t just have “drug deals gone bad oops 4 dead but it’s just another tuesday” unless it’s a literal organised crime thing that went REAL bad and would have greater repercussions than just a couple of hicks you know

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              23
              ·
              1 year ago

              People do care why they shot each other, because in one case the general public is at risk and in the other the general public is not at risk.

              That needs to be the definition of a mass shooting. Let’s pull a hypothetical… if the Heaven’s Gate nutjobs had all shot each other instead of poisoning themselves (39 dead), would you consider that a mass shooting?

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

              For me, it happened on private property, solely among members of a cult, did not involve the public or innocent victims… it’s a tragedy, it’s a failure of multiple social safety nets, but it wouldn’t be the same as someone killing 39 innocent, uninvolved, people in a school or shopping center.

              • telllos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                24
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The general public is definitely at risk if a drug buy goes bad a bullets start flying all over the place.

                  • ChronosWing@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Do you not realize that bullets go through walls? Luckily it was contained but could have easily turned into a tragedy if some toddler sleeping next door gets hit by a stray bullet. You are arguing semantics, just because it happened at someone’s home instead of public doesn’t not make it a mass shooting. You just want the numbers to look better so you can ignore certain types of gun violence. When in reality it should be lumped together because it is a systematic problem that needs to be fixed.

              • Obi@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Of course it should count as a mass shooting if 39 people shot themselves/each other. You’re looking for the definition of an act of terrorism, that has nothing to do with mass shooting. If we reverse your logic, and a guy kills 39 innocent bystanders but they used a bomb, would you then also call that a mass shooting?

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Terrorism has a definition. It’s an act of violence in service to a political ideology. None of the mass shootings have been classified as terrorism, though I’d argue the ones in the predominately black supermarket or church and the one in the predominately hispanic Walmart probably should have been.

                • Dax87@forum.stellarcastle.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There is no widely-accepted definition of “mass shooting” and different organizations tracking such incidents use different definitions. Definitions of mass shootings exclude warfare and sometimes exclude instances of gang violence, armed robberies, and familicides. The perpetrator of an ongoing mass shooting may be referred to as an active shooter.

                  In the United States, the country with the most mass shootings, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 defines mass killings as three or more killings in a single incident.[1] A Congressional Research Service report from 2013 specifies four or more killings on indiscriminate victims while excluding violence committed as a means to an end, such as robbery or terrorism.[2] Media outlets such as CNN and some crime violence research groups such as the Gun Violence Archive define mass shootings as involving “four or more shot (injured or killed) in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter”.[3] Mother Jones magazine defines mass shootings as indiscriminate rampages killing three or more individuals excluding the perpetrator, gang violence, and armed robbery.[4][5] An Australian study from 2006 specifies five individuals killed.[6]

                  there is no one definition

      • Cheesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The definition of mass shooting shouldn’t detract from the fact that 500+ shootings 4+ injured is too many

          • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            500+ shootings

            Your figure is off by two orders of magnitude, it’s ~48k gun deaths, including suicides (for 2022).

            So about 5k more than your car accident figure.

            And it’s odd to me you’re arguing the license angle; are you advocating for a licensing system like there are for cars, like written and applied tests a citizen must pass before gun ownership?

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unfortunately, we can’t require licensing. The Supreme Court already ruled that the core tenet of the 2nd Amendment is self defense and that can’t be burdened.

              What I PERSONALLY would like to see is a full root cause analysis on every shooting and plugging the holes that allowed it to happen.

              For example:

              In the Maine shooting, he bought the guns he used 10 days before being reported for abberant behavior and being involuntary committed for 2 weeks.

              Background checks wouldn’t work because he bought the guns before there were any reported problems.

              Being involuntarily committed should have resulted in a seizure of all weapons. It did not. Why not? In most cases because seizures require a court ruling and if the commitment wasn’t court mandated, that doesn’t happen.

              Bonus - if the commitment isn’t court mandated, that also won’t turn up on a background check, a common problem with other mass shooters.

              That needs to change, and it doesn’t involve the 2nd amendment or a change in gun laws, it just has to expand what already happens in court adjudicated cases to non adjudicated cases.

              Alternately, you push ALL mental health commitments through court to ensure guns are withdrawn and the commitment shows up on background checks.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                19
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And we all know the Supreme Court never reverses a decision. That’s why abortion is still legal nationwide.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court requires neither to reverse a decision. What with other decisions that weren’t Roe taking a lot less than 50 years and what with their not caring about popular opinion.

                    Is this the first time you’ve heard of them?

                  • User_4272894@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Took 13 years to undo prohibition, which unlike abortion and gun rights, was based on a clear and direct constitutional amendment with no arguments about “framers intent” or changes to technology/interpretations of rights over time.

                    This entire “50 years of cultural shift and overcoming supreme Court decisions” is straight bullshit.

          • Nudding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s the number one cause of death for children in America? Is that a rounding error?

      • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What difference does it make why it happened, think of the impact on the community, neighbors, innocent bystanders, hearing or seeing that crap going down. That’s PTSD material. And the family of all the people involved, even if they were criminals, that’s an exponentially bigger impact than if one or two people are involved.

        IMO you’re thinking of the difference between terrorism and violence. A mass shooting can be an act of terrorism (inflict harm on a large number of people), but it doesn’t have to, it’s the number (mass) involved, not the intent.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          The intent very much matters. In the example I stated above, the intent on one side was to buy a bunch of weed and the intent on the other side was to sell a bunch of weed. Nobody walked into that looking to shoot someone, it just worked out that way.

          Compared to someone hauling an AR-15 into a supermarket and shooting indiscriminately, that’s a huge difference in intent.

          In the case of the public at large, the latter case results in “oh, shit, that could have been me!” but the former case it’s “Well, glad I’m not trying to illegally sell a bunch of weed to out of towners!”

          Calling both a “mass shooting” does a disservice to the victims of actual mass shootings.

          • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m pretty sure GVA lumps every shooting together because then the only common factor, and then the only solution, is the gun itself

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That and they make money by keeping people scared. “ZOMG! MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN DAYS IN THE YEAR!!!” and news orgs repeat it without questioning their methodology.