Mass Shooting Correlation or ???

lightman said:

It sure seems like it happens more when gun control is discussed and it would be easy to make up a conspiracy theory around it. But I think the real conspiracy is in the reporting.

Click to expand...

I note the same correlation, based on current leftist 'gun control' activities.

Stevel said:

While not a conspiracy theorist it seems when gun control legislation is introduced there appears to be a higher number of shootings that are reported. We've had 3 mass shootings happen in the last 3 weeks.

Click to expand...

I think the fact that mass shootings go in spurts has more to do with sensationalism by the media and losers out there looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Media hype giving folks more ideas on how to get back at cheating spouses or the public in general. Doubt if it has anything to do with "I better get a gun now and shoot up a school while I still can!"

Man is violent. Many factors affect violent crime rates, these have been discussed in detail by people who follow it far more closely than I. But media reporting? That is most certainly a tool used to sway public opinion.

Stevel said:

Interesting.

In looking at a couple of the previously mentioned stories there are 2 characteristics which are present in several that may have limited national exposure.

1. "Mass Shootings" technically are supposed to be where the shooter does not know the victims, such as the Soopers shooting in Boulder. Therefore many of the gang related or familial incidents wouldn't qualify.

Click to expand...

Since when are mass shootings technically where the shooter doesn't know people??? So you are saying workplace shootings where a disgruntled employee shoots a bunch of his/her workmates or school shootings where a student shoots a bunch of classmates or faculty isn't a mass shooting because the shooter knew the victims. That is ridiculous.

What is your source that claims this technical definition? Sounds like somebody is trying to hide a bunch of mass shootings behind a bunch of unrealistic and stupidly restrictive criteria.

Basically, nothing new under the sun. Shortly after Prohibition violence, the gun banners pushed thru the NFA, of 1934.
The two Kennedy assassinations, though 5 years apart, are considered watershed events, in the passing of the GCA of 1968.

Gun banners seize upon what opportunities they can, to twist the emotions of legislators, and voters alike. They are loathe to let a tragedy go to waste, when it can be blithely exploited, to further restrict our Constitutional Rights.

Stevel said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mass-shooting

"1. a single incident involving the shooting with one or more firearms of a number of people, but more than two and typically a large number, especially when the victims are random:There's news of a mass shooting at the stadium, with two fatalities and 25 injured."

Click to expand...

So in other words, your source does not support your claim that "technically" a mass shooter doesn't know the victims. A mass shooting isn't any more of a mass shooting when the victims are unknown or random. It is still a mass shooting, regardless. That is a hokey explanatory definition. It is also wrong in that mass shootings are NOT typically composed of a large number of victims. The majority of mass shootings have the minimal number of victims or close to the minimal number. The definition you cite basically says 3 or more (which was a government refined definition) that would also NOT include the shooter. Most mass shootings are 3, 4, or 5 victims, not including the shooter, so not a large number. Most mass shootings are not 10, 20, or 30 victims (large numbers). The ones you hear about the most are in the high numbers, but they are truly atypical mass shootings.

Evil may be evil, but a mass shooting is in NO WAY defined, technically or otherwise, by the shooter not knowing the victims.

Stevel said:

, but more than two and typically a large number

Click to expand...

I'd put the emphasis on "more than 2" rather than the known/unknown factor. More than zero is too many, but in the statistical world, the guy in Indiana a couple weeks ago who shot his ex and her family over stimulus money committed a mass shooting. It may not have been splashed across all the news outlets, but the data will be entered just the same. "XX number of mass shootings" on whatever list cited by anti-gun groups will reflect it the same as Atlanta and Boulder.

Because the topic of this thread is based on real live events that we see unfolding right in front of us. Zombies aren't real. The A-Pocky-clips isn't real. and neither ever will be. We discuss real issues here and there are no dues to be paid. All adults here and we treat each other with respect. Welcome to the best 2A forum on the net!! Lots of great information here and tens of thousands of the best people you will ever meet. Poke around a bit, lots of good things going on here. Welcome!

If you are new, here's a hint. If you don't like a decision, PM the staff. Complaining about it in a thread isn't the way to go.

Back on topic, folks.

George Dickel said:

I remember some years back the media was reporting on all the incidents with train wrecks and cars being hit at railroad crossings. Also some years back airplane crashes were the event du jour, seemed like airplanes were falling from the skies. Shark attacks are another topic that springs up every so often. With the anti-gun media they will always try to find another "mass shooting" to bolster their contention that guns should be banned. I receive the NRA magazine American Rifleman and really enjoy reading their The Armed Citizen section. Too bad the national media overlooks these incidents where a gun saved a person.

Click to expand...

They don’t overlook them. They don’t report them because they don’t fit their narrative.

Note:
the word Hysteria (what the MSM wants to stir up about guns) is linked to the word hysterectomy .

If in doubt, look it up.

As a public health threat, mass shootings require public health solutions (msn.com)

After three deadly gun rampages, survivors and experts fear what comes next (msn.com)

The pandemic of gun violence causes this expert (me) to fear having certain items of property taken.

I suspect that there is zero correlation and (as stated previously), there is only agenda. Here in the St. Louis area, I wake up every single day to the same group shooting each other in the same area - every single day on the local news - most of the time, it seems like multiple victims but on a slow killing day, it may be only one victim and the madness never stops. Then every single day, I am told by the national news that I don’t see what I see and I don’t hear what I hear - AND ( the big and), that there is something wrong with me - it is sad and laughable all at the same time.

I don't know . I have had those thoughts as well, but I don't think we will find the truth in the media. I do believe the media is biased and has agenda's they push , I do believe there is a political reason why you don't hear as much as you should about the violence in Chicago. I have no factual data, but it seems the last administration time frame had less mass shootings ? Timing and reasons, and reporting seem to make things random.

Carl N. Brown said:

I believe advocacy journalism is a real thing, a self righteous version of old fashioned yellow journalism "in a good cause" of course.

Click to expand...

Contemporary reporters, anchors and pundits are so sanctimonious is makes me nauseous.

Every presidental term we get shootings, But it seems there are more shooting when Democrats are in office.

Who was President during the Las Vegas incident?

I think the thread has run its course. Closed.