While you were being distracted by the shooting in Australia...

The US surpassed 12,000 gun violence deaths and will reach 50,000 verifiable incidents by the end of the week. You can go to www.gunviolencearchive.org to see a constantly updating Summary Ledger and a searchable database of the toll of US gun violence.

I should also add that there was another siege in SE Pennsylvania which didn't make US MSM, where at least 6 people died. I believe all the victims were armed as well.

It's news when it happens in Australia, but another day when a mass shooting happens in the USA.

The US doesn't have a gun problem? seriously?

By a true "mass shooting" definition (over 4 people shot: not killed), The US has had 270 mass shootings this year.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/2014massshootings

Mass shootings, as American as apple pie?

You would hate to think that mass shootings are incredibly common in the US.  After all, it seems that only the biggies seem to make it to the press these days since the topic is beginning to seem like an Onion Article: "we'll only cover them if 20 people, make that 30 people, no 50 people died".

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.

Generally, there are three terms you'll see to describe a perpetrator of this type of gun violence: mass murderer, spree killer, or serial killer. An FBI crime classification report from 2005 identifies an individual as a mass murderer if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (The baseline of four fatalities is key) Source

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.

Ah, Florida, Haven (and Heaven) for Gun Lunatics

Earlier this week, there was another mass shooting, no surprise - in lax gun law state Florida, haven of ammosexuals. This quote from seems to sum up the problem with allowing weapons with large capacity magazines and which can fire a great deal of ammunition very quickly, for the purpose of wounding or killing large numbers of people. From the Miami Herald:

...two men had pulled up in a dark SUV around 2:15 a.m. Tuesday as more than a dozen people were hanging out, talking and drinking. The men climbed out lugging high-powered automatic weapons, and took aim. ...When the shooting stopped, more than five dozen shell casings littered the parking lot, sidewalk and street. Two men were killed and seven people were wounded in one of the worst mass shootings in Miami in decades. But sources say the two men, carrying an AK-47 and an AR-15, were firing at an intended target who might not have even been in the crowd. The shooters had not been arrested or identified by Tuesday night. Police were tagging beer bottles and other paraphernalia around the crime scene hoping to find DNA matches or other evidence that might help identify the shooters. “The motive at this point is still unknown. We’re still investigating,” said Miami police spokeswoman Frederica Burden. The scene was so chaotic that when reports circulated that three men had been arrested in connection with the shooting, police immediately said it wasn’t true. The reality: Three men were detained after tossing a Sponge Bob Square Pants bag that contained weapons.

As noted in supporting a ban on large capacity weapons and assault-style weapons in Washington D.C., back in 2011, from the New York Times, quoting the findings of the presiding court:

This ruling underscores a principle set forth in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns at home for self-defense. The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”

The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.

It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.

To date the SCOTUS has not in any way disagreed with this ruling that :

1. Specifically sets limits the kind of weapon guaranteed under the 2A; and

2. Restricts that right to the home, not on the street or in/at/on any other public or private place;

Shootings like this underline why we need stricter gun control laws and enforcement, and fewer and different guns in our population.

Please explain to me: If mass shootings only happen in gun free zones...

why have there been at least two mass shootings and a lockdown at a University in Kennesaw,

Georgia?

Come on, you know Kennesaw, GA--it's the Melanie Hain of US cities for gun loons since all citizens are required to own guns.

And, like Meleanie--it hasn't made anyone safer.

On 12 January 2010, Three people were killed and two others critically injured in a workplace shooting at the Penske truck rental business located near the city of Kennesaw, Georgia.

Another mass shooting happened today at a Fedex facility with one person rushed into surgery for serious injuries and five others with less critical injuries.  I guess this will only be a blip on the radar despite the fact that the shooter was described as having an assault-style rifle, knife and bullets strapped across his chest "like Rambo".

It also seems that Kennesaw State University has a campus lockdown last month.

While people such as Glenn Harland Reynolds have pointed to Kennesaw's law as having a significant effect on crime, the actual data shows that any change in crime was insignificant .  Kennesaw's law was purely symbolic and was never enforced so is unlikely to have had any effect on gun ownership in Kennesaw.

Of course, if we listen to the "pro-gun" side, we should want to see more people carrying weapons and not have the police pay any attention to them until after they have killed someone.

They are good guys with guns until they start killing people.

In the case of the Fedex mass shooter, he actually was a good guy with a gun since he ended up killing himself.

Shooting at the Columbia Mall (Maryland)

I had to think if I really wanted to post that there was a mass shooting at the Columbia, Maryland shopping mall, but I thought about it and it makes loads of sense.

If you are unfamiliar with Columbia there was this link below the Baltimore Sun story when I first saw it:

Columbia: 10th most perfect suburb?

This is the start of the Wikipedia Article about Columbia:

Columbia is a planned community comprising 10 self-contained villages, located in Howard County, Maryland, United States. It began with the idea that a city could enhance its residents' quality of life. Creator and developer James W. Rouse saw the new community in terms of human values, rather than merely economics and engineering. Opened in 1967, Columbia was intended to not only eliminate the inconveniences of then-current subdivision design, but also eliminate racial, religious, and class segregation.
Columbia proper consists only of that territory governed by the Columbia Association, but larger areas are included under its name by the U.S. Postal Service and the census. These include several other communities which predate Columbia, including Simpsonville, Atholton, and in the case of the census, Clarksville. The census-designated place had a population of 99,615 in 2010,^[4] making it the most populous community in Maryland after Baltimore.^[5]

In other words, Columbia was supposed to be the perfect suburban space.  A place which is family friendly and relatively crime free.  It is a place where people move so they can raise families away from Urban problems.

In other words, this shit ain't supposed to happen in places like Columbia.

But, it does, it can happen anywhere.  That's what this shooting should hit home to you, but I know that you are a little too biased to believe the bullshit you spout without criticism.

Do guns really make people safer?  If that is the case, why are these incidents so common in the US, but not other developed nations?  Why not let the research speak for itself rather than silence it?

It's nice to say things, but not when objective facts contradict them.

More on Andrew Boldt

Andrew Boldt, the victim of the Perdue University shooting is profiled here.  The author points out:

I cannot imagine what his family is going through tonight. The shooter, identified as 23-year-old Cody Cousins, has been arrested, but his motives are not yet clear. Whatever the motives, this 21-year-old young man did not deserve to die today. He probably went in to work like you or I not suspecting a thing.

I know a lot of you feel that you could put an end to any active shooter incident, but do you really have the bottle to handle it in real life?

I should also add that most people in the US know at least one person who has been a victim of this plague. It shouldn't take too much longer before people start getting upset and actually doing something about this problem.

Texting during a mass shooting

You should be proud at the level of carnage in the US since that it how your "Second Amendment Right" is expressed (mine would be that you all get to do drill and spend time on a military base).  Anyway, someone said the number of school shootings is around 35, but that is only what gets reported in the news.

BTW, I know people text their families and friends during active shooter incidents, but that as this points out--that doesn't fit your idea of how these incidents go down.