4 ms·

mass shooters... gravitate to assault rifles Absolutely false. The vast majority of "mass shootings" are with handguns.

by masonic 7y ago

bsanr2 7y ago
We have different definitions of mass shooters. I assume you advocate strongly, with great investments of time, energy, and money, to alleviate the ones I would say you're including erroneously, yes?
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Slick reply, but a mocking, obsequious attempt to brush the definitions aside changes nothing: the parent comment is correct. > We have different definitions of mass shooters. You're almost certainly talking about high profile shooting incidents with broad media coverage, that drive what is essentially a moral panic. Parent comment is referring to incidents where 3+ people get shot, which often do not make the national and international media, and are predominately carried out with handguns. The shootings last August that got a lot of attention are a great example. Couple of back-to-back mass shooting incidents in TX and Ohio got a lot of press... even though just the week before something like 34 people got shot in Chicago over the course of 2 days; hardly a word in the press outside of Chi-town.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    You're mistaken, as I was simply trying to draw attention to the fact that the motivations, and therefore salves, for a) a mass shooter who enters a soft target and kills strangers indiscriminately, and b) a "mass shooter" who knows his target and catches innocents in the crossfire, differ substantially. You group the two in order to dilute the focus of anti-gun violence advocacy, but you're given away by how little you care about instances of the latter definition otherwise. If "mental healthcare" is your panacea, it won't help non-suicide handgun violence. You know that, and I know that, and it's then perplexing why you would think we wouldn't notice.

4 ms·

mass shooters... gravitate to assault rifles Absolutely false. The vast majority of "mass shootings" are with handguns.

by masonic 7y ago

mass shooters... gravitate to assault rifles Absolutely false. The vast majority of "mass shootings" are with handguns.

bsanr2 7y ago
We have different definitions of mass shooters. I assume you advocate strongly, with great investments of time, energy, and money, to alleviate the ones I would say you're including erroneously, yes?
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Slick reply, but a mocking, obsequious attempt to brush the definitions aside changes nothing: the parent comment is correct. > We have different definitions of mass shooters. You're almost certainly talking about high profile shooting incidents with broad media coverage, that drive what is essentially a moral panic. Parent comment is referring to incidents where 3+ people get shot, which often do not make the national and international media, and are predominately carried out with handguns. The shootings last August that got a lot of attention are a great example. Couple of back-to-back mass shooting incidents in TX and Ohio got a lot of press... even though just the week before something like 34 people got shot in Chicago over the course of 2 days; hardly a word in the press outside of Chi-town.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    You're mistaken, as I was simply trying to draw attention to the fact that the motivations, and therefore salves, for a) a mass shooter who enters a soft target and kills strangers indiscriminately, and b) a "mass shooter" who knows his target and catches innocents in the crossfire, differ substantially. You group the two in order to dilute the focus of anti-gun violence advocacy, but you're given away by how little you care about instances of the latter definition otherwise. If "mental healthcare" is your panacea, it won't help non-suicide handgun violence. You know that, and I know that, and it's then perplexing why you would think we wouldn't notice.