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

[Dill]

(04-29-2019, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.  

My response then is, no, it is not a "mass shooting."  I'm fine with the definition of 4+ randomly chosen or symbolic/representative victims. But I do think it was a an "act of terrorism," or at least a hate crime.

This reminds me somewhat of the definition of what counts as a "War"; most historians/sociologists/political scientists who study the subject agree on a 1,000 death threshold.

That definition then determines the answer to questions like "How many wars have there been since 1970?"  If the threshold were dropped to 500 or raised to 1,500, the answer would be different.

If we want to understand why mass shootings occur, then we need to agree on what counts as one, whether intent matters, and if so, what sort of intent?  If we can at least get USEFUL answers to those questions, definitions which enable us to determine trends and perhaps their social location and causes, then we ought to be doing that. The point is not just to help reporters and those who compile crime stats, but to understand criminal trends and hopefully their causes.

[*bfine32*]

(04-29-2019, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: My response then is, no, it is not a "mass shooting."  I'm fine with the definition of 4+ randomly chosen or symbolic/representative victims. But I do think it was a an "act of terrorism," or at least a hate crime.

This reminds me somewhat of the definition of what counts as a "War"; most historians/sociologists/political scientists who study the subject agree on a 1,000 death threshold.

That definition then determines the answer to questions like "How many wars have there been since 1970?"  If the threshold were dropped to 500 or raised to 1,500, the answer would be different.

If we want to understand why mass shootings occur, then we need to agree on what counts as one, whether intent matters, and if so, what sort of intent?  If we can at least get USEFUL answers to those questions, definitions which enable us to determine trends and perhaps their social location and causes, then we ought to be doing that. The point is not just to help reporters and those who compile crime stats, but to understand criminal trends and hopefully their causes.

I think what you are describing is a mass killing, not a mass shooting. IMO, the number dead have 0 to do with it being a mass shooting. 

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 12:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think what you are describing is a mass killing, not a mass shooting. IMO, the number dead have 0 to do with it being a mass shooting. 

??? Number of people shot then?  Number of shots fired?

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2019, 12:19 AM)Dill Wrote: ??? Number of people shot then?  Number of shots fired?

More than one shot at random folks. 

[GMDino]

(04-29-2019, 05:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

(04-29-2019, 05:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I agree.  That would help us understand "shootings" vs "killings".

I personally believe the shootings are just as bad.

(04-29-2019, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: My response then is, no, it is not a "mass shooting."  I'm fine with the definition of 4+ randomly chosen or symbolic/representative victims. But I do think it was a an "act of terrorism," or at least a hate crime.

This reminds me somewhat of the definition of what counts as a "War"; most historians/sociologists/political scientists who study the subject agree on a 1,000 death threshold.

That definition then determines the answer to questions like "How many wars have there been since 1970?"  If the threshold were dropped to 500 or raised to 1,500, the answer would be different.

If we want to understand why mass shootings occur, then we need to agree on what counts as one, whether intent matters, and if so, what sort of intent?  If we can at least get USEFUL answers to those questions, definitions which enable us to determine trends and perhaps their social location and causes, then we ought to be doing that. The point is not just to help reporters and those who compile crime stats, but to understand criminal trends and hopefully their causes.

That "terrorism" label gets stickier.  If we can at least agree with what bfine says below then we can start to get a baseline agreement on how many of these horrible events there are and see if there is indeed anything that can be done to limit them more.

(04-30-2019, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: More than one shot at random folks. 

Agreed.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-30-2019, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: More than one shot at random folks. 

That's really not how anyone else defines it among the varied definitions used.  

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 09:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: More than one shot at random folks.

That's really not how anyone else defines it among the varied definitions used.  

I don't find it adequate. If some crazy guy rips off two shots in a crowd before he is subdued, then that becomes a mass shooting incident.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The semantic argument going on here is honestly fascinating. It really illustrates just how pointless the term "mass shooting" is. No agreed upon definition. A term with no definition is a useless term.

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2019, 10:38 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't find it adequate. If some crazy guy rips off two shots in a crowd before he is subdued, then that becomes a mass shooting incident.

We need as much info as possible about the motives and means of mass shooters.  We can't just disregard the ones who get stopped before they kill enough people.  The means and motives of "attempts" are identical to the ones who succeed. 

If it makes everyone feel better we could just come up with a different label like "random shooter incidents".

[Belsnickel]

Turning away from the silly debate over whether this is a mass-shooting or not, I'm curious if anyone else has found it interesting that a number of conservatives are seeking to blame liberals for the anti-semitism exhibited here when the shooter was a right-wing white supremacist.

[GMDino]

(04-30-2019, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Turning away from the silly debate over whether this is a mass-shooting or not, I'm curious if anyone else has found it interesting that a number of conservatives are seeking to blame liberals for the anti-semitism exhibited here when the shooter was a right-wing white supremacist.

Ted Cruz tweeted exactly that. While condemning the NY Times.

The anti-Semitic Left—whether @IlhanMN repeated anti-Israel slurs or @nytimes apologizing for Hamas terrorists (eg, on 3/14/18) & running racist cartoons—is getting worse. And the House can’t even pass an anti-Semitism resolution. Responsible Dems need to say Enough is Enough. https://t.co/ca99Mcq9Ij

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 28, 2019

 

[GMDino]

(04-30-2019, 10:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: We need as much info as possible about the motives and means of mass shooters.  We can't just disregard the ones who get stopped before they kill enough people.  The means and motives of "attempts" are identical to the ones who succeed. 

If it makes everyone feel better we could just come up with a different label like "random shooter incidents".

I'm think we need a way to have a baseline so we can actually say how many of these events occur instead of one side or the other arguing that this or that one "doesn't count".  Same argument we had about "terroristic" acts when some will use the Homeland Security definition and some want to apply a dictionary definition and some just have a feeling about what is terror and what is not.

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2019, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Turning away from the silly debate over whether this is a mass-shooting or not, I'm curious if anyone else has found it interesting that a number of conservatives are seeking to blame liberals for the anti-semitism exhibited here when the shooter was a right-wing white supremacist.

They can't speak against an anti-Semitic shooter because of the Second Amendment.

So instead they scream about someone claiming that AIPAC actually uses money to influence lawmakers.

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Turning away from the silly debate over whether this is a mass-shooting or not, I'm curious if anyone else has found it interesting that a number of conservatives are seeking to blame liberals for the anti-semitism exhibited here when the shooter was a right-wing white supremacist.

Very simple.

White nationalists include Nazis, who are anti-semitic National Socialists, who are socialists, who are leftists.

The other side of the coin is that "leftists" defend Palestinians against dispossession by Israel=Jew hate.

In a right-wing media space dominated by false equivalences and magical thinking, any negative association can effectively be attached to "the left." Their alliance with Al Qaeda proves that lol.