4 ms·

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

• 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.