In the U.S., the carnage never stops

Following up on my “Well Regulated Militia” newspaper opinion post… I have to ask myself again, why did I move to Santa Fe?

4 Likes

“Conspiracies by the far right media” are you kidding me? Road rage is a far right, “thing”. I’ve never seen a right winger tear down statues, or burn down cities, or throw people under trains, right wingers don’t run over cadets, out on the morning jog.

“Carnage”? 2020 was the summer and year of carnage. 2022 and soon 2023 are going to get a lot worse, with no law and order, a southern invasion, cartels taking over operational control and Chinese police stations, we haven’t seen carnage yet.
The final jeopardy question, is who’s going to stop it!

The “right” stayed put, while giving the left all the rope they needed to hang the country!
It’s not the far right! It’s the left committing the atrocities, that’s not a conspiracy when you see it with your own eyes!
IMHO he wants to speak of licensing, well, maybe we demand a license to drink and assault charges for fender benders! Just common sense!

7 Likes

This is a person that just wants to get their names on a byline. How many gangs are there? How many of them ride around and shoot other gang members? Are those not considered “mass shootings?” The definition according to the FBI of a mass shooting is when 4 or more people are killed. A mass shooter has but one aim, to kill as many people as possible. This writer is compartmenting. Another look would indicate that it hasn’t been just the last three years.

I’m really trying to understand which part of the US that he’s referring to? Since I was kid there has always been people getting shot or shot and killed, even before the popularized term “mass” became a hit. This is nothing new, it’s just more pronounced due to the advent modern tech. Everyone has a cellphone with cameras, cameras on all highways, street corners, and business; everything is instant on, instant upload and live streaming, and right now. So, I believe the stats are skewed.

3 Likes

Mass shooting can be 2 people shot. Just like an arsenal is 3 guns and 300 rounds of ammo. The “Mass Shootings” could be stopped if there were no gun free zones and people shot back. There were several recent incidents where the wanabe mass shooters were taken out by armed citizens.

2 Likes

Mackinzie speaks with forked tongue WRT the 600/year. Typical liberal anti-gunner.

“How many guns does a normal person have?”
“About five.”
“That sounds like a gun enthusiast to me.”
“No, a gun enthusiast has fifteen.”
“That sounds like someone obsessed with guns.”
“No, people obsessed with guns have hundreds.”
“That sounds like a psycho.”
“No, psychos seldom own guns, or maybe have one or two.”
“But that sounds like a normal person though.”
“No, a normal person has about five. We already covered that.”

8 Likes

Please excuse me for that…it’s just the Instructor in me that likes to stick to proper nomenclature and proper terms that I teach that got the better of me here, coupled with what the USCCA, FBI, and ALERRT terms as a “Mass Shooting.” Sorry about that…far be it from me to intentionally put out “wrong” (though not wrong) information.

1 Like

While reading up on this, I noted the FBI definition for mass murder being 4 people killed. Mother Jones defines a mass shooting as killing three or more people, but apparently not including gang violence or armed robbery (Mass shooting - Wikipedia), while Gun Violence Archive defines it as four or more shot or killed (https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology). So there really is no “definition” for mass shooting.

Rather, I think “mass shooting” isn’t as much about the number as it is about the word. It’s often about whatever the disarmament faction thinks it can get away with saying in order to scare people.

After all, “mass” sounds really, really big, right? Think “weapons of mass destruction,” “mass migration,” and “massive layoffs.” Conflate the word “mass” in “mass shooting” with those examples, but don’t convey the actual number, and you can frighten lots of people through associative imagery and visceral feeling into thinking everything is a Las Vegas, Uvalde, or Sandy Hook.

2 Likes

FBI and the Propaganda Media don’t always agree on the body count required.

1 Like

Assault Shooting, can be any number😉

Keep one thing in mind, Deaths caused by long arms, have stayed a pretty consistent 3-4 hundred a year for over a decade.

1 Like

There are more deaths per year by cutting implements than long arms. If they ban knives than blunt instruments will be next. Murderers will always find a way.

kind of like who’s on 1st lol :laughing:

1 Like

I don’t know. :wink:

1 Like

Typical a lib blaming violence on the “Right and Far Right”, at the point he writes this he no longer has credibility.

A full year of liberal riots destroying private, State and Federal property and killing and injuring many, with very few held accountable for their actions.

A President who everyday allows violent criminals to cross the border, and further a liberal agenda of letting criminals get away with any and all violence, which as you can guess is creating much more crime and violence.

A President who called 50% of America terrorists because they are conservative or voted for Trump.

A Sanders worker who shot Republican Steve Scalise and tried to shoot others at a softball event.

A deranged lib who was armed and outside a Conservative SCOTUS Justices home with the intent to kill him.

Obama, Maxine Waters, and many more Dems telling their backers to get into conservatives faces.

Sad that liberals are so predictable and morally corrupt!

4 Likes

Hmmm… permit me to rant just a bit, if you don’t mind. Know this going in, I respect the fact that you took the time to look up some information and even provided the source from which you obtained that information, it says a lot about your integrity. Thank you. That said. Fasten your seatbelt.

There are many opinions as to what defines “mass shooting,” and further opines that there is no definitive description for the term. I can appreciate your use of the term “Propagandized Media,” which is fleeting. Such media may offer useful information, but it’s not standardized information. It’s subject to change with the next opinion! I cannot afford nor will I attempt to teach something that does not have a solid floor. I prefer to teach that which is either universally and locally accepted by competent authority (the floor), and that has been standardized and is fundamentally sound. Why? Because your very life may depend on it.

You’ve offered a couple of sources upon which to base your argument, that’s cool. However, there are others (and there will always be others), in addition to those you’ve mentioned such as https://www.lifelineapplications.com/post/what-is-a-mass-shooting. Or, Mass Shootings in the United States | RAND, etc. There will always be other viewpoints. Opinions are dime a dozen. But they have no modality, no training apparatus, no standardized curriculum, and are no credentialing authority, just recycled opinion.

For instance, my states’ legislature, which is a convening authority to determine what is authorized as a pre-requisite to its credentialing Concealed Carry Instructors for Gun Permits, have accepted the NRA and recently the USCCAs training curriculum and/or methodology(s), as meeting its requirements according to the laws of our state for Concealed Carry. Now, are there other opinions as to what or who’s better, absolutely, but has it been tried and proven and standardized and made comprehensive so as be taught fundamentally to serve the public interest in accordance with its laws, no they have not. It may be useful information and nice to know information, or even niche information, but there ends the distinction.

While you’ve pointed to other posted media that offer compilations resourced by other posted media that would give the illusion of there being no standardized or commonly agreed upon definitive description for the term Mass Shooting, I’ll have to beg to differ. “The terms, “active shooter” and “mass shooting” are sometimes used interchangeably by the media, but there is actually a federal government definition for both of those terms.”” As it pertains, the FBI defines “mass shooting” as an event where four or more people have been fatally shot, not including the shooter.” (CTMST, pg. 13)

In 2013, ALERRT @ Texas State University was named the National Standard in Active Shooter Response Training by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This is my credentialing authority. Their standard curriculum is what I teach.

Countering the Mass Shooter Threat curriculum, researched and authored by Michael Martin and adopted by the USCCA as A Comprehensive Playbook for Every House of Worship, School, Business and Family in America and is my credentialing authority, and their standardized curriculum is what I teach.

Just as the NRA is my credentialing authority for the Basics of Pistol Shooting. While there are other opinions about how it may, should or could be done differently and, in some opinions, better; they have standardized their curriculum which has stood the test of time and have credentialed those that will teach its curriculum.

It is understood that other media sources would present information that would lend the impression that there is no commonly agreed upon definition, but that’s them, it’s subjective. FBI is not trying to be them. ALERRT is not trying to be THEM. USCCA is not trying to be THEM. But these authoritative and credentialing bodies have standardized reliable information drawn from much research and many reliable sources in order to arrive at and set a standard, opposed to being all over the map, based on what some other sources have said. There will always be noise in the background. But when you sign up for a class and pay your money; you want to know the information is solid; you don’t want your instructor all over the map at your expense! You want good, rock-solid information, well researched and standardized, which is what you pay for! You don’t go to Instructors that are confused about what they’re teaching. You want them to be informed, yes; but you also want them to be skilled at demonstrating the fundamental or discipline being taught. And you want them to own it, to stand behind what they’re teaching. If you don’t, you should! After all, you’ve paid for it! So, it should be worth using and adding to skills that you’ve already honed or are attempting to develop and make your own. Oh, I’m done. And thank you so much for letting me rant. Woooo Sahhhhh.

1 Like

That’s interesting. I’ve heard a few cases in the news, just this year, where a so-called “mass shooting” did not meet this definition. Maybe 1 person was killed and 4 people wounded, or maybe 3 people were killed but one was the shooter, etc. I always take sensational headlines with a huge grain of salt, but it’s interesting to compare them against an actual definition.

(Then again, these are the same people who don’t seem to realize that there’s an actual definition for “terrorist.”)

1 Like

@Ouade5, Thanks for your remarks. Yeah, that’s the FBI definition, four or more…fatal. This does not include gang violence, robbery, or drug crimes. Two terms that are sometimes used interchangeably, but each having their own definition is “active shooter” and “mass shooting.”

Media can call it what they want, but the alphabet org. may not acknowledge it or them as such.

1 Like

This is also interesting. We occasionally get gang/drug shootings. Sometimes they get reported as mass shootings. Sometimes they don’t get reported at all. I guess it just depends on how slow the news day is, or what neighborhood it happened in.

I don’t know if this is the FBI standard, but I was taught that “active shooter” is a description of an ongoing situation. If there is a person with a firearm shooting at people, that’s an active shooter, regardless of whether there are any victims or not. When the shooter is neutralized, then it is no longer an active shooter scenario, even if it is still a “mass shooting” event.

Does that sound correct?

Yes, I believe the distinction had to be made due to conflation as was indicated earlier, which also leads to the notion that there is no commonly agreed upon definition for mass shooting. To me it’s simple math, to others it’s blurry.

According to the playbook, the “active shooter” is in the process of attempting to kill a large number of people in a confined area, even if they weren’t successful. The primary motive in these incidents appears to be mass murder; that is, the shooting is not a by-product of an attempt to commit another crime." That definition is one reason why the FBI doesn’t count events committed as part of gang violence, or events that occurred during a robbery or a drug crime. Those crimes get another categorization, rather than one of an “active shooting event.” So, as mentioned, an event may fit the FBI’s definition of an ASE (Active Shooter Event) even if no one was killed.

Now, the FBI defines “Mass Shooting” as an event where four or more people “have been” fatally shot, not including the shooter.

1 Like