[removed]

I scrolled until my finger got tired.

It was only March 2020

[removed]

[removed]

Scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll...

Anyone who wants to buy an assault weapon should be required to read the names of all these people first. Then the price of the gun should be increased by $10 for everyone shot in a mass shooting over the previous 12 months. $100 for everyone killed. Give that money to the victims, or their families.

Most of these were committed with handguns FYI, not long guns. Long guns in general are a drastic minority of gun violence, deaths, and while the rate is higher for mass shootings than general violence, they are still a minority.

Kinda wish there was some way to zoom in and out. Like start with per year and drill inward. Otherwise its an endless scrolling of death.

I always knew mass shooting in the US were frequent, but in my head it was maybe two of them a year.

What the fuck

Long guns are not as easy for the media to fear monger. Also if they only included long guns in this ‘mass’ shooting visualization it would be MUCH shorter.

It depends on the definition. At the widest definition (three injuries, no deaths IIRC), They are shockingly common. At the more colloquial definition (multiple fatalities) there are about one a month on average, still not bad, but not the "at least once a day".

It depends on what issue is being pushed what definition is used.

If you're on a PC, you can use Ctrl+Mouse Wheel to zoom in and out of the webpage. It's not great but it's something.

It would also be much more brutal. Charles Whitman, the Vegas shooter, DC Sniper, those events should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

Its an insane amount of damage and death to innocent life.

Honestly it might turn people against long guns that much more effectively. Seeing what one dude with a box of rifles could do at UT Austin, even 60 years ago, is pretty jarring for most people. Missing limbs, decapitations, crumpled children.

That is the point dude

Or to filter. Maybe filter by number killed, etc. would make it a more useful graphic.

Also shows that a large number of the mass shootings involve no one dying (think it might even be the majority of them) something not a lot of people realize.

Wow. I had no idea a bunch of them happen every month! From my perspective in the UK, we get news of them every now and then. Turns out the ones that hit our news are just the big ones.

The list of people killed with baseball bats is longer than "assault weapons." If you're going to try to address these numbers with gun control, target the guns that actually create them. Handguns. And cheap handguns. The kind of gun control that targets the guns that poor, minority, people can and do buy. Gun control laws are often racist, but that's the price you'll have to pay to target the guns used in 99% of these.

I like guns, I like my guns. But hate the ease that illegal gun owners can get their hands on black market guns. And how unstable people can just steal them.

The definition they used is atleast 4, excluding the shooter.

Personally i feel 4 wounded is a good definition for a mass-shooting, if one is to include multiple fatalities it no longer shows how prevalent the shootings themselves are. It would disguise the seriousness of the issue. Including multiple fatalities specifically as well does not accurately portray the lethality.

Since the qualifier for this chart is 4 wounded or killed, it serves as an accurate representation of the amount of mass-shootings, but not the severity of them. However if one were to count only shootings with multiple fatalities it would become less accurate the more fatalities there are.

An example:

Month 1 has three shootings with two fatalities and 2 wounded each

Month 1 = 3 shootings resulting in multiple fatalities.

Month 2 has 3 shootings, 2 of them result in 5 wounded, the third results in 10 deaths and zero wounded.

Month 2 has had one shooting resulting in multiple fatalities.

If we wish to see the severity of a shooting on average, it would be better to do so with deaths/shooting.

Month one has 3 shootings, 6 dead.

6/3 = 2 = three shootings with an average of two fatalities each.

Month two has three shootings, ten dead.

10/3 = 3.3 = three shootings with an average of 3.3 fatalities each.

This might be useful to measure the effectivness of the response from both the victims and emergency services. The most effective way of minimizing the amount of fatalities from this type of data would be to compare the fatalities of any mass-shooting to the average fatalities. Shootings that greatly exceed the average can be studied to see why they differ. Location, weapon used, time of day, emergency response etc.

The chart in the article is accurate for the frequency of mass shootings, but inaccurate for their severity. Calculating only shootings with multiple fatalities give an accurate representation of severe, lethal mass-shootings, but it is innacurate regarding both the total amount of fatalities, and the total amount of shootings. But if we combine this with the total amount of shootings, we can get an accurate representation of (for lack of a better term) non-severe/severe ratio. If we assume 30 days a month, one shooting a day and one a month with multiple fatalities the ratio would be 29 shootings for every 1 shooting resulting in multiple fatalities, or 29:1.

If we were using an average it accurately tells us how many shootings we would have, along with how many deaths they result in. However it is inaccurate in telling us how widely it can fluctuate from shooting to shooting. 10 shootings, 9 of them with only wounded, and one of them with 20 dead would give as an average of 2 dead per shooting. However the one mass-shooting resulting in 20 deaths is clearly worse than the other nine.

It depends on what kind of information youre looking for.

Two words-gang violence

Every single event in this list would dominate national news in Germany for at least a week. The dimension is astonishing. Time and time again.

99% of these are gang violence, still terrible, but it has been normalized for a long time.

Check the details. What constitutes a mass shooting is always what you think it’d be.

What's the context of this? Is that a lot compared to "non-mass shooting deaths?" Is it comparable to number of people struck by lightning? Number of people dying of preventable diseases? It's a really niche thing to laser focus on and the visualization doesn't provide any context.

But those two things are related. If you objectively increase the total number of firearms in a geographic location, it will be easier for people to get guns illegally.

How does a criminal get a gun? Well, they steal them. If you have more guns, they'll acquire more guns. And more guns means supply is increased vs a relative demand. That makes guns cheaper. So you end up with more guns on the black market, for cheaper.

The general Republican talking point is that more guns make us all safer. Well. It doesnt. We still stop a INCREDIBLY low number of home invasions with firearms, compared to how many happen. Most criminals dont want to die, so most criminals steal your guns when you're not home. So more guns arguably, makes us less safe collectively, while it makes individuals much more safe, while they have access to them, and are awake.

So you have these three forces all acting on each other. Total number of firearms, criminals desire for firearms, and a firearm being a way to stop bodily harm or theft.

Since you cant do anything about any of those forces existing, the idea, is to keep them in a balance.

You can probably draw a pretty simple correlation to the availability of firearms, and the propensity for their use, the same way you can tell if an African conflict is about to pop off when the price of an AK-47 drops below 50 USD. Cheap guns means over supply, over supply means a lot of people have guns, which means a lot of people are about to use their guns.

You need to balance the availability, with peoples right to defend themselves, with the criminals desire to get and use firearms. If one of those is out of whack, you start seeing mass violence and crime. Either because people cant defend themselves, you have too many guns, or people have a dramatically increased desire to murder each other.

If any of those things increase or decrease, you see the other forces move in an equal and opposite direction.

And I dont think they're entirely unstable. A human being needs to eat, sleep, shit, have a place out of the elements, and its totally rational to get those things by the path of least resistance for you. If thats a job, cool, if thats crime, well, thats what that person thought was the easiest thing to do. You cant know a persons circumstances and say that their risk assessment is so flawed it makes them crazy. If you have absolutely no prospects for a legal life, crime is probably the rational decision. And no rational person wants to die right? The same way you dont want to get shot by a robber, a robber doesnt want to get shot by a store clerk or the person theyre mugging. It was be irrational to try and mug someone without a weapon.

When you realize that most people are rational actors, its easier to understand these issues.

Of course the availability of firearms is tied to the amount of illegal guns. You have more guns, so criminals need more guns, so that means, you need more guns. Now the cops need more guns because we're all running around with guns. And theres no shortage of people to rob, or gun stores to buy more guns from, or police budget shortages to arm up the police to deal with us all chambering 7.62s and rocking drum mags.

Objectively speaking, if we want to reduce this paradigm or stop it, we need a lot less fucking guns.

I say this as an avid gun owner. We got too many fuckin guns.

We have many countries down south that are easy to get guns from too. The United States is positioned for easy access to guns. Modern gun culture comes from the leftover British belief of letting their colonies keep guns to protect their property. That eventually morphed into individuals safety, and safety from tyranny. I think the current gun legislation efforts are unhelpful attempts to fix any of this tbh.Some states ban cosmetics, and magazine limits… when the next state over allows any magazine size.

I wish for a simple federal gun license, one that most republicans would compromise with. One for handgun/rifle, one for shotgun, and just check mental health and ensure the person buying is well educated in firearm safety, and that they are storing the gun properly. I think the die hard gun culture cannot be fixed by simple bans(especially when one state over can bring in anything banned), but I think we can limit and prevent a lot of damage. I think as time goes on less people will want guns, at least assuming things don’t get worse economy in the long term…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#List_of_mass_shootings_(21st_century) helps with understanding

It's about 1 or 2 everyday

The majority are domestic violence actually

The majority are domestic violence

Remember when y'all killed like 6 million in a few years?

> Wow. I had no idea a bunch of them happen every month!

Most of them are gang violence. Not worth reporting by the main stream media.

I was scrolling through and one of them happened to be where I grew-up, but hadn’t heard of it. I looked it up and it was a fire, not shooting. This is very sad, but I question the data source.

Domestic violence is also two words

Then let's get rid of the handguns too. I'm ok with that.

Agreed. Let's get rid of all the handguns. I'm ok with that.

Just gotta pass a constitutional amendment. DC v Heller prohibits handgun bans.

We absolutely do. That's why it's in the news.

Can you name the number of US-induced casualties since then? Probably no, but also no one there cares.

Ah, the Guardian stretching definitions for outrage attention

12 mass shootings only last week... wow, just wow.

Yeah.. because that’s also in the news every now and then.. and in every history book starting in 5th grade.

Which one is it? It may be worth emailing them to let them know

They used the definition that the FBI use of 4 or more people shot. I think that is a pretty good definition.

Lol but hey focus on international issues and destabilise other countries to feel better about your own.

It doesn't prohibit taxing the shit out of them.

Nice representation, but together with Covid data, this is one of the worst things you wanna look into.

pretty sure the purpose is to make you see everyone on there…filtering would be an ignorant feature to add

Filtering would not preclude people from doing that, and would encourage people to actually see more than they do.

more? that a stretch i could filter for what i was looking for and never look outside of my search results, thus limiting the amount of the list i actually see

filtering does the exact opposite of encouraging people to fully view the list in its entirety..if that was the given point to begin with

disagree. The list is so long that most people don't look at the list. They just start scrolling and realize it is huge. Now if they were able to start with it that way, the same thing would happen, but then they would say, hmm, maybe let me look at the mass shootings with at least one death, and they would go "wow, look at that" then they would be like what about more than 1, what about 3, etc. and in general interact with it more than just dang, too long of list.

The majority seem to be in the 'god fearing' States.

as someone who definitely just scrolled that entire list because i wanted to see how long it actually was, my opinion is biased because i literally just did what you said most people won’t..as there is no way for either of us to definitively know, let’s just agree to disagree.

also as i’ve said, the point of the data is important..if the point is to just show the sheer scale, filtering would do the opposite but i don’t know what the purpose was. It’s worth consideration.

have a good one bud

Just fyi, adding filtering would not preclude you doing exactly what you did. Complete enhancement with nothing lost.

Have a good one as well

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) says congress cant arbitrarily or use Federal taxes as a regulatory penalty. Taxes cannot be made from spite or as a means of punnishment. So back to the drawing board.

It's not a penalty. It's a "sin tax", like the other two components the ATF watches over. See there, they're already in the same category, under the same regulatory agency.

Constitutional Rights are "sin"s now? Ive never heard of a Tobacco Amendment in our constitution. Imagine if we emposed a tax on other rights. Actually, I take that back. We have done that in the past in the country. And in 1964 we collectively agreed that taxing constitutional rights were wrong, and made it federally illegal.