I thought there actually was a definition of this term, but there doesn't seem to be:
Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. But there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials who have spoken with Mother Jones.
That may be why there is a "mass shooting" where 12 people are shot, but they don't die. It doesn't really make the news either.
If we are going to come up with a number, there is this site which comes up the the number 200 for the period from 1 Jan 2014 to 17 Aug 2014. I'm sure that number will be questioned, but it is a lot.
Part of the issue with the open carry movement is how much does it prevent or promote the occurrence of mass shooting in the US? Actually, we can say that for either open or concealed carry since the big argument for more permissive carrying of weapons is that they somehow stop crime.
On the other hand, if it ends up enabling mass shootings, is it such a great idea? And let's face it: there is a lot of gun violence in the US.
One thing I've been see a lot in the comments on Kroger's facebook page are the pro-gunners saying that a business could be sued if it is a gun free zone and there is a mass shooting. Their claim is that the business is liable if an armed civilian could have stopped the shooting.
But, the whole matter hinges on how foreseeable the event would be. As U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson said in regard to the litigation around the Aurora Cinema shooting "I reiterate that this court is in no way holding as a matter of law that Cinemark should have known of the danger of someone entering one of its theaters through the back door and randomly shooting innocent patrons."
Wouldn't the issue be if the business made it easier for a mass shooting to happen by allowing the instrument of destruction onto their property If the matter hinges on foreseeability? In other words, if a business allows a person to bring a weapon of war onto their property and a mass shooting happens because of that--it would then be liable for what happened.
Likewise, one would have to be able prove that an armed civilian would have actually stopped the event, which hinges on both the foreseeability that an armed civilian would have actually been present and the actual ability of armed civilians from stopping mass shootings in the past.
Given situations such as the Columbine Shooting where the shooters engaged an armed Jefferson County Sheriff's deputy and other mass shooting incidents where armed citizens were present, yet did nothing to stop the incident (e.g., the shooting in Tucson where Gabby Giffords was shot). There seems to be a significant evidence problem in proving that an armed civilian would stop anything: even if they were present.
You'll get struck by lightning three times before getting shot by some random person. What's the problem again?
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like some bullshit that you just made up.
DeleteHe's probably right.
DeleteThe key word is 'random.'
Of course, you're over three times as likely to be shot by a friend or relative if you won a gun.
"Given situations such as the Columbine Shooting where the shooters engaged an armed Jefferson County Sheriff's deputy and other mass shooting incidents where armed citizens were present, yet did nothing to stop the incident (e.g., the shooting in Tucson where Gabby Giffords was shot). There seems to be a significant evidence problem in proving that an armed civilian would stop anything: even if they were present."
ReplyDeleteThe accepted procedure at the time of the shooting at Columbine was to was to hold back, securing a perimeter, and containing the criminals. The large loss of life resulted in the development of the active shooter tactic which emphasizes rapid response in order engage the assailant resulting in reducing loss of life.
There have been several recent examples of this tactic effectively being used, notably Arapahoe High School in Colorado. Or if we want to look at a civilian's use of a firearm, Dr. Silverman in a hospital in PA, which discussed here at length.
The evidence is there.
Nonsense. In reality, the response at Columbine is the one advocated today. In fact, the Washington Navy Yard is teaching that presently.
DeleteAgain, the Mark Essex case in NOLA is instructive--this was the case of a serial killer who was killed on the rooftop of NOLA hotel and for nearly 8 hours after Essex's death (he was killed by a military helo), police and gunloons fought a pitched battle against each other in the belief they were engaging a sniper.
I didn't know CIVILIANS had an accepted procedure. Is that written down somewhere? Is it a pamphlet passed around to civilian gun owners?
Delete"police and gunloons fought a pitched battle against each other in the belief they were engaging a sniper."
ReplyDeleteThe Mark Essex event was interesting. However, I didn't see anything about a gun battle between civilians and police after Essex was killed. Might you have a source?
What I read, the only shooting was by military, police, and Essex.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/mark_essex/index.html
"In reality, the response at Columbine is the one advocated today. In fact, the Washington Navy Yard is teaching that presently."
Are you talking about first responder training? Or the training unarmed victims get if you work for the federal govt?
"Police followed the traditional tactic at Columbine: surround the building, set up a perimeter, contain the damage. That approach has been replaced by a tactic which takes into account the presence of an active shooter whose interest is to kill, not to take hostages. This tactic calls for a four-person team to advance into the site of any ongoing shooting, optimally a diamond-shaped wedge, but even with just a single officer if more are not available. Police officers using this tactic are trained to move toward the sound of gunfire and neutralize the shooter as quickly as possible.[99] Their goal is to stop the shooter at all costs; they are to walk past wounded victims, as the aim is to prevent the shooter from killing or wounding more. David Cullen, author of Columbine, has stated: "The active protocol has proved successful at numerous shootings during the past decade. At Virginia Tech alone, it probably saved dozens of lives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Police_tactics
"if we want to look at a civilian's use of a firearm"
DeleteYou always twist things, the sign of a weak position and a deceit filled person. Laci's post was about civilians carrying and stopping gun killers.
"Laci's post was about civilians carrying and stopping gun killers."
DeleteLaci also specifically mentioned Columbine in the original post, seemingly as evidence that armed responders are ineffective against mass shooters. So if Laci feels that Columbine is germane, then Arapahoe High School is just as on topic.
And of course, the example of Dr. Silverman is a perfect example of a civilian stopping a potential mass shooting. Even government officials believe that,
"District Attorney Jack Whelan lauded Silverman using his gun despite breaking hospital rules saying, “he'd be dead today and I believe other people in that facility would be dead.”
http://delconewsnetwork.com/articles/2014/08/04/news_of_delaware_county/news/doc53da6f3455d49427520788.txt
It's the gun loon idiocy like yours that thinks if everyone including children were armed our society would be a better place. That proves your idiocy and gun loon credentials.
Delete