Do we count the shooting at Chabad of Poway as a "mass shooting"?

[GMDino]

There was "only" one person killed.

Personally I feel that is one too many given how many people are shot and killed each day in this country.  

But I'm sure there are those who will not count this one in the "crazy white guy with mental problems" column of the mass shootings so I was curious where we stand on it.

I suppose even if he intended to kill more he did not so there are those who would rather we just ignore it altogether.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I have an interesting question. We had a thread about Christchurch, justifiably, and now we have a thread about this. Why no thread on the bombings in Sri Lanka that killed considerably more people?


As to your topic, what defines a "mass shooting" is often dependent on the person speaking. In your opinion how many people need to be shot for an event to qualify as a mass shooting?

[GMDino]

(04-29-2019, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have an interesting question.  We had a thread about Christchurch, justifiably, and now we have a thread about this.  Why no thread on the bombings in Sri Lanka that killed considerably more people?

Not sure. Despite some opinions I don't start every thread in here. Maybe you should have started one?

(04-29-2019, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As to your topic, what defines a "mass shooting" is often dependent on the person speaking.  In your opinion how many people need to be shot for an event to qualify as a mass shooting?

As I said, one person being shot is horrible.

The shooter seemed to "intend" to kill many more and did injure three others. I consider this a "mass shooting" but as you say it seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Do you have a number you use to differentiate?

[Belsnickel]

Here is an interesting essay on the issue of defining "mass shooting": https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/mass-shootings.html

It's an interesting topic and the ambiguity of the term has caused some problems. This is the conclusion from the essay:

Quote:While different choices about how to define a mass shooting and the period over which to calculate mass shooting trends have resulted in disagreement about whether the frequency of mass shootings has risen, there is clear evidence that the media’s use of the term mass shooting has increased significantly over recent decades (Roeder, 2016). Unfortunately, the ambiguity in how mass shootings are defined and counted may result in increased media coverage influencing public perception without better informing our understanding of the prevalence of mass shootings or their determinants, trends, social costs, or policy implications.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2019, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not sure.  Despite some opinions I don't start every thread in here.  Maybe you should have started one?

Interesting.  You're not sure yet have no opinion?  As far as starting it myself, I don't think I could deal with Fred further accusing me of peddling right wing talking points.  It's too painful.

Quote:As I said, one person being shot is horrible.

Of course it is, this isn't something that even needs to be said.

Quote:The shooter seemed to "intend" to kill many more and did injure three others.  I consider this a "mass shooting" but as you say it seems to be in the eye of the beholder.  Do you have a number you use to differentiate?

You still didn't give a number.  I don't have a number because "mass shooting" is a buzzword used to provoke a response.  A shooting is a shooting.  If you use the definition that three or more people were shot then the vast majority of "mass shootings" are gang related shootings.

[GMDino]

(04-29-2019, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting.  You're not sure yet have no opinion?  As far as starting it myself, I don't think I could deal with Fred further accusing me of peddling right wing talking points.  It's too painful.

You didn't ask for my opinion. Generally you disagree with my opinion.

So I answered the question you asked.

It seems you now want my opinion so it will be no surprise that I find such attacks abhorrent and cowardly. I grieve for the killed and wounded and wish we could find a way to live peacefully with each other without allowing religion and politics and personal hate to cause others to want to kill us.

(04-29-2019, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course it is, this isn't something that even needs to be said.

I wanted to be clear. In the past I have had exact statements that didn't "even need to be said" ignored just to create an argument.

(04-29-2019, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You still didn't give a number.  I don't have a number because "mass shooting" is a buzzword used to provoke a response.  A shooting is a shooting.  If you use the definition that three or more people were shot then the vast majority of "mass shootings" are gang related shootings.

Then for clarity I will say if the intent of the shooter is to shoot multiple people even if they fail it is a "mass shooting". Clear enough?

Hopefully I've answered your multiple questions in a way that satisfies you and we can move back to the original question to the board: Does anyone else consider this a "mass shooting"?

[GMDino]

(04-29-2019, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is an interesting essay on the issue of defining "mass shooting": https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/mass-shootings.html

It's an interesting topic and the ambiguity of the term has caused some problems. This is the conclusion from the essay:

Exactly.

One side will say it is, one side will say it is not and all so they can skew their "statistics" about shootings and their politics on terrorism or gun control depending on their argument.

That's why I had the question in the first place.  I see this being referred to as  "shooting" but he clearly intended to shoot more people he just failed.  If a bomb is placed by a someone because of religion and it doesn't go off or doesn't kill or hurt anyone is it a terrorist attack or just an attack?

[Belsnickel]

(04-29-2019, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.

One side will say it is, one side will say it is not and all so they can skew their "statistics" about shootings and their politics on terrorism or gun control depending on their argument.

Then why start a snarky thread about this that is seemingly dismissive of the idea that this isn't a mass shooting?

(04-29-2019, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's why I had the question in the first place.  I see this being referred to as  "shooting" but he clearly intended to shoot more people he just failed.  If a bomb is placed by a someone because of religion and it doesn't go off or doesn't kill or hurt anyone is it a terrorist attack or just an attack?

But that is a different issue. A failed terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack. What makes an attack a terrorist attack is a bit easier to distinguish, IMO, than the line drawn to determine an attack is a mass whatever. Terrorism by its nature still has some degree of success even with no casualties where as your "run of the mill" mass murder/shooting/whatever fails without them. Terrorism is also more easily defined than drawing this distinction and trying to qualitatively define something like this is more off-putting for society as a whole.

[GMDino]

(04-29-2019, 12:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Then why start a snarky thread about this that is seemingly dismissive of the idea that this isn't a mass shooting?


But that is a different issue. A failed terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack. What makes an attack a terrorist attack is a bit easier to distinguish, IMO, than the line drawn to determine an attack is a mass whatever. Terrorism by its nature still has some degree of success even with no casualties where as your "run of the mill" mass murder/shooting/whatever fails without them. Terrorism is also more easily defined than drawing this distinction and trying to qualitatively define something like this is more off-putting for society as a whole.

Snarky?

Nope.

I acknowledged that there are those who don't want to count it because "crazy white guy" but I wondered if the body count mattered because, as I said, even one person killed is too many.  I was not "dismissive" of the event buy rather asked if others felt it was a "mass shooting" based on the amount of victims.

And you did answer my question about a bomb versus a shooting, so thank you for that.  I know there have been multiple discussion on the board about when to call an attack a "terror" attack based on the definition by the bodies that investigate and handle such things.

[Belsnickel]

(04-29-2019, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Snarky?

Nope.

I acknowledged that there are those who don't want to count it because "crazy white guy" but I wondered if the body count mattered because, as I said, even one person killed is too many.  I was not "dismissive" of the event buy rather asked if others felt it was a "mass shooting" based on the amount of victims.

And you did answer my question about a bomb versus a shooting, so thank you for that.  I know there have been multiple discussion on the board about when to call an attack a "terror" attack based on the definition by the bodies that investigate and handle such things.

I didn't say you were dismissive of the event, but rather the idea that this wasn't a mass shooting. As for it being snarky and what not, that's how it comes across.

[GMDino]

(04-29-2019, 12:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't say you were dismissive of the event, but rather the idea that this wasn't a mass shooting. As for it being snarky and what not, that's how it comes across.

Oh no.  I thought that I was clear that I feel it is a mass shooting and wondered what others thought.  If not my responses to SSF should have cleared that up.

When I want to be snarky it's pretty obvious and 99% of the time in direct response to other perceived snark.     This was not one of those times.  

[fredtoast]

Instead of "mass shooting" maybe we should label them as "random" shootings.

There have been a lot of family massacres and gang shootouts that are "mass shootings" but when I think of "mass shooting" I generally think of a case where the shooter does not know the victims or does not have specific targets. But then you have the cases of students who have "hit lists".

So maybe the number is not as important as some other element. But I still can't give a good concrete definition.

[CJD]

Is there any relevance to counting the number of mas shootings anyway?

[fredtoast]

(04-29-2019, 04:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Is there any relevance to counting the number of mas shootings anyway?

Some people feel they are an issue that needs to be addressed.

[CJD]

(04-29-2019, 05:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Some people feel they are an issue that needs to be addressed.

And the number of mass shootings sways their or their political opponent's opinions?

[fredtoast]

(04-29-2019, 05:04 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: And the number of mass shootings sways their or their political opponent's opinions?

Not sure where you are trying to go with this, but the number of mass shootings would have a big impact on the amount of resources or the level of response needed to address the problem.

Isn't that how it works with pretty much every issue?  We need information before we decide how to react.

[*bfine32*]

Seems there were a few heroes that were responsible for keeping the death toll lower.

As to the question posed by the OP (i'll have to take his word that he asked in earnest) I think this should be addressed as a mass shooting. He shot among a mass of people with no particular target in mind.

[Belsnickel]

(04-29-2019, 05:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the question posed by the OP (i'll have to take his word that he asked in earnest) I think this should be addressed as a mass shooting. He shot among a mass of people with no particular target in mind.

I think this is a very good way to think about it. A mass shooting being a shooting that involves multiple victims with no individual intended target. Seems reasonable to me.

[*michaelsean*]

I don’t think we get to call it a mass shooting because of intent anymore than we get to call attempted murder murder. It has nothing to do with crazy white people.

[CJD]

(04-29-2019, 05:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure where you are trying to go with this, but the number of mass shootings would have a big impact on the amount of resources or the level of response needed to address the problem.

Isn't that how it works with pretty much every issue?  We need information before we decide how to react.

just making a tongue in cheek remark about the inability of our government to enact any kind of change to any policies due to the crippling partisanship in this country predefining people's beliefs and opinions based on what team they play for :) .