Mass Shooting & Gun Violence |

[superrific]

Yes. I have treated dozens of gunshot victims, not counting the ones that were already dead on scene where no treatment was rendered. The very first shooting I responded to involved a young woman home alone in the middle of the day who shot the first of two men who kicked in her door while she was on the phone screaming with 911. My wife also was able to deter a home invader while I was at work by brandishing a firearm. I agree that our experiences greatly shape our perspectives in life.

So what do you do to correct for that bias?

 

[ZZLPHeels]

So what do you do to correct for that bias?

Nothing. I don't think I need to. It isn't like I am open carrying an AR everywhere I go and donning body armor whenever I leave the house. I live my life normally and understand the risks involved with a lot of issues and take reasonable measures to counteract those while also understanding that you can never fully eliminate risk in life. I also have a good perspective of how long it can take help to get to you once you have an emergency. I view my firearms the same way I view my airbags, seatbelt, and smoke detectors: they are tools I am glad to have because I've seen the results of the alternative.

 

[superrific]

This is true, but active shooter events are the events that singlehandedly drive most people to discuss gun control. People either don't understand that these events only make up a small fraction of gun homicides or they don't care.

Well, that's not quite right. Active shooter events are recorded when the killer is shooting indiscriminately in a public place. Here's what ChatGPT said when I asked about mass killings that don't count as "active shooter events." I asked for three examples. Note that I haven't verified the analysis but ChatGPT rarely hallucinates or mis-analyzes when I prompt it correctly.

" Farmington, NM, 2023. A lone gunman walked through public streets, opening fire on drivers and bystanders with an AR-15–style rifle and sidearms. Three women were killed (ages 73–97) and six others, including police, were seriously injured before he was shot and killed by officers.

• GVA: This counts as a mass shooting (4+ people shot or killed).
• FBI Active Shooter? Unlikely included, because the shooter’s actions, while deadly, lacked evidence of indiscriminate intent in a populated area—it reads more like a rampage through vehicles and residences rather than an ongoing public killing mission.

Cleveland, OH, 2007:
A 14-year-old student opened fire inside his high school, wounding four students and teachers before fatally shooting himself.

• GVA: Yes, counted—four victims were shot.
• FBI Active Shooter? Probably not. It appears to be a targeted, personal attack in a school by a single individual, not an ongoing attempt to kill indiscriminately in a crowded public space.

Maryland, 2018:
At a Rite Aid distribution center, a shooter killed three people and wounded three others before turning the gun on herself.

• GVA: Yes—mass shooting by victim count.
• FBI Active Shooter? Likely excluded. This looks like a workplace shooting, possibly targeted or personal in motive, rather than an indiscriminate attack in a populated public area."

 

[superrific]

Nothing. I don't think I need to. It isn't like I am open carrying an AR everywhere I go and donning body armor whenever I leave the house. I live my life normally and understand the risks involved with a lot of issues and take reasonable measures to counteract those while also understanding that you can never fully eliminate risk in life. I also have a good perspective of how long it can take help to get to you once you have an emergency. I view my firearms the same way I view my airbags, seatbelt, and smoke detectors: they are tools I am glad to have because I've seen the results of the alternative.

You do need to if you want to have a reasoned conversation about it. You know that. Otherwise you are prone to confirmation bias and spin.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

You do need to if you want to have a reasoned conversation about it. You know that. Otherwise you are prone to confirmation bias and spin.

Everyone is prone to confirmation bias and spin. As you noted earlier, someone that lives in a safe neighborhood that has never had to worry about crime will likely believe that no one has a need for a gun.

 

[superrific]

Everyone is prone to confirmation bias and spin. As you noted earlier, someone that lives in a safe neighborhood that has never had to worry about crime will likely believe that no one has a need for a gun.

Unless they research the topic honestly, as I do.

Here's what often happens for me on this board (and not just on the board). Someone makes a claim like you did: there are fewer active shooter events than whatever it was. That seems incredibly fishy to me, so I go look it up. And I learn something: "active shooter" events are actually rarer than I had thought. I also learned something else: "active shooter" events are more narrowly defined that I thought. In those cases, the new knowledge happens to balance out with respect to this issue.

In either case, though, I learned something. That is, I corrected for my bias. I still reach the same conclusion as I had when we started, but that's not always true. It's more true now than, say, two decades ago because I've been doing this for a while and so I just know more than I did. Less surprises me, and so I revise my views less. But it still happens.

When I was younger, I used to be a free trade skeptic. Then I read about trade economics, to see if my view was correct. The evidence was overwhelming against my position. I am now a free trader, even though that's not exactly a "liberal" position. I have also been extremely concerned about raising the minimum wage too high, for fear that it could decrease employment if it becomes higher than the marginal product of labor. But in recent years, there have been studies showing mixed effects in this regard. So while I'm cautious before endorsing just any minimum wage hike (One of the few leftist Dems in Congress proposed, I think, something like a $22/hr minimum nationwide, which is ludicrous), I'm less concerned than I was. I still believe that "phase-in" doesn't really solve the problem.

 

[heelinhell]

So I would like to see the numbers on how many folks actively protect their home from invaders with guns
versus
The number of suicides and shooting deaths of family members at Homes with guns
It is from a societal view a real net negative to have guns in Homes -like maybe 100 or 1000 to 1, maybe 10,000-1?

I used to think having guns in my home posed a bigger risk to me and my family than protecting us from intruders and would be rapists and murderers

But one of my MAGA friends convinced me I was wrong and urged me to buy lots of guns. He let me hold his AR-15, but man that assault weapon was too heavy to hold so I ask if him if could buy and keep a dozen light weight hand guns in every room of my house.

He agreed that was a good idea as long as I did not keep them locked away so they would be ready for use when the violent bad guys broke into my house.

Knowing I had never used a handgun, he thought it might be a good idea for me to get some gun training. I said I didn't think there was a law to prove you were proficient using a gun unlike having to prove be proficient driving a car. He agreed saying it's a good idea but not a law you can skip the training which I did.

And guess what ?

no one in my family has committed suicide
none of my grandchildren have been interested in playing with my guns ( I give credit to their parents for teaching them that guns are only meant to stop violent murderous intruders from killing your grandparents )
Neither missus or me has had any intention to kill each other...so far

So I'm locked and loaded and ready to kill any home invader. There hasn't been one in the 45 years that I have been a homeowner but you never know.

About 10 years ago our neighborhood was victimized one night by some violent murderous intruders who invaded some cars parked in the driveway.

Now that I have handguns and if some violent murderous thug wakes me out of a sound trying to break into my car in search of who knows what, I will get out of my bed with my, gun , walk out to the car and say in my best Dirty Harry voice, "Go ahead, make my day"

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Unless they research the topic honestly, as I do.

Here's what often happens for me on this board (and not just on the board). Someone makes a claim like you did: there are fewer active shooter events than whatever it was. That seems incredibly fishy to me, so I go look it up. And I learn something: "active shooter" events are actually rarer than I had thought. I also learned something else: "active shooter" events are more narrowly defined that I thought. In those cases, the new knowledge happens to balance out with respect to this issue.

In either case, though, I learned something. That is, I corrected for my bias. I still reach the same conclusion as I had when we started, but that's not always true. It's more true now than, say, two decades ago because I've been doing this for a while and so I just know more than I did. Less surprises me, and so I revise my views less. But it still happens.

When I was younger, I used to be a free trade skeptic. Then I read about trade economics, to see if my view was correct. The evidence was overwhelming against my position. I am now a free trader, even though that's not exactly a "liberal" position. I have also been extremely concerned about raising the minimum wage too high, for fear that it could decrease employment if it becomes higher than the marginal product of labor. But in recent years, there have been studies showing mixed effects in this regard. So while I'm cautious before endorsing just any minimum wage hike (One of the few leftist Dems in Congress proposed, I think, something like a $22/hr minimum nationwide, which is ludicrous), I'm less concerned than I was. I still believe that "phase-in" doesn't really solve the problem.

I'm not sure what your end goal is here. I'm not going to change my opinion on this issue. I have no problem if other people feel differently than I do. Like you said, each person's beliefs are a product of their own experiences. I'm not giving up my firearms because a study says that most people probably aren't going to experience a home invasion. We've already experienced it, and I'm glad my household was prepared.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

I used to think having guns in my home posed a bigger risk to me and my family than protecting us from intruders and would be rapists and murderers

But one of my MAGA friends convinced me I was wrong and urged me to buy lots of guns. He let me hold his AR-15, but man that assault weapon was too heavy to hold so I ask if him if could buy and keep a dozen light weight hand guns in every room of my house.

He agreed that was a good idea as long as I did not keep them locked away so they would be ready for use when the violent bad guys broke into my house.

Knowing I had never used a handgun, he thought it might be a good idea for me to get some gun training. I said I didn't think there was a law to prove you were proficient using a gun unlike having to prove be proficient driving a car. He agreed saying it's a good idea but not a law you can skip the training which I did.

And guess what ?

no one in my family has committed suicide
none of my grandchildren have been interested in playing with my guns ( I give credit to their parents for teaching them that guns are only meant to stop violent murderous intruders from killing your grandparents )
Neither missus or me has had any intention to kill each other...so far

So I'm locked and loaded and ready to kill any home invader. There hasn't been one in the 45 years that I have been a homeowner but you never know.

About 10 years ago our neighborhood was victimized one night by some violent murderous intruders who invaded some cars parked in the driveway.

Now that I have handguns and if some violent murderous thug wakes me out of a sound trying to break into my car in search of who knows what, I will get out of my bed with my, gun , walk out to the car and say in my best Dirty Harry voice, "Go ahead, make my day"

It is great that some people live in such security that they can make fun of those who don't. Ivory towers, and such. "Why would ahhyyee ever need to wear a life jacket, Jeeves? Of course I would just call the chopper to rescue me if this boat ever took on wahhh-ter."

 

[superrific]

I'm not sure what your end goal is here. I'm not going to change my opinion on this issue. I have no problem if other people feel differently than I do. Like you said, each person's beliefs are a product of their own experiences. I'm not giving up my firearms because a study says that most people probably aren't going to experience a home invasion. We've already experienced it, and I'm glad my household was prepared.

I did not say that beliefs are a product of their own experiences. I said that beliefs can be affected by experience. That's why we have science. Science is the corrective to anecdote or personal belief. If you don't want to consider evidence in forming your opinion, relying instead on personal experience, that's your choice.

But you aren't the only reader. My end goal is to find the truth as much as possible. To have views supported by evidence, and to present evidence for others who also seek truth. If I can't convince you, so be it but there are probably others who benefit.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

I did not say that beliefs are a product of their own experiences. I said that beliefs can be affected by experience. That's why we have science. Science is the corrective to anecdote or personal belief. If you don't want to consider evidence in forming your opinion, relying instead on personal experience, that's your choice.

But you aren't the only reader. My end goal is to find the truth as much as possible. To have views supported by evidence, and to present evidence for others who also seek truth. If I can't convince you, so be it but there are probably others who benefit.

I'm a huge believer in science, which is why I find myself in perpetual arguments with morons who are anti vaccine or who believe that the evil government controls the weather. However, you have to be able to recognize that science isn't the end all be all. Studies have holes or flaws, and they can't account for everything. Most people will never get lung cancer so statistically the average person shouldn't be concerned about it. Until they get that diagnosis. Most people will never experience a tornado, so they can get by without a basement. Until they hear that "freight train" outside. Most people will never, ever even come close to experiencing a mass shooting. Until one happens. Sometimes you have to be able to look up from the screen and look around you, and being reasonably prepared is never a bad thing. Purchase the expensive health insurance. Preplan where to go if a natural disaster strikes. Have emergency cash on hand in case you lose your job. Make sure your smoke detectors are functional. Be able to defend yourself in the event of a home invasion. Wear your seatbelt. And so on.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

I used to think having guns in my home posed a bigger risk to me and my family than protecting us from intruders and would be rapists and murderers

But one of my MAGA friends convinced me I was wrong and urged me to buy lots of guns. He let me hold his AR-15, but man that assault weapon was too heavy to hold so I ask if him if could buy and keep a dozen light weight hand guns in every room of my house.

He agreed that was a good idea as long as I did not keep them locked away so they would be ready for use when the violent bad guys broke into my house.

Knowing I had never used a handgun, he thought it might be a good idea for me to get some gun training. I said I didn't think there was a law to prove you were proficient using a gun unlike having to prove be proficient driving a car. He agreed saying it's a good idea but not a law you can skip the training which I did.

And guess what ?

no one in my family has committed suicide
none of my grandchildren have been interested in playing with my guns ( I give credit to their parents for teaching them that guns are only meant to stop violent murderous intruders from killing your grandparents )
Neither missus or me has had any intention to kill each other...so far

So I'm locked and loaded and ready to kill any home invader. There hasn't been one in the 45 years that I have been a homeowner but you never know.

About 10 years ago our neighborhood was victimized one night by some violent murderous intruders who invaded some cars parked in the driveway.

Now that I have handguns and if some violent murderous thug wakes me out of a sound trying to break into my car in search of who knows what, I will get out of my bed with my, gun , walk out to the car and say in my best Dirty Harry voice, "Go ahead, make my day"

What, heelinhell, you don't have a gun in your car? Are you crazy? That's the soft underbelly of this plan. What if a miscreant pops up in the backseat? You won't be ready, will you? Keep that gun in the passenger seat at the ready. You're welcome.

 

[superrific]

I'm a huge believer in science, which is why I find myself in perpetual arguments with morons who are anti vaccine or who believe that the evil government controls the weather. However, you have to be able to recognize that science isn't the end all be all. Studies have holes or flaws, and they can't account for everything. Most people will never get lung cancer so statistically the average person shouldn't be concerned about it. Until they get that diagnosis. Most people will never experience a tornado, so they can get by without a basement. Until they hear that "freight train" outside. Sometimes you have to be able to look up from the screen and look around you.

The problem there isn't the science. It's that you're misusing it. Scientists would never dismiss unlikely threats as nugatory. In fact, one important purpose of science is specifically to discover threats that might not be immediately apparent.

No study is perfect. You're right. The antidote to that isn't relying on personal experience. It's learning how to read studies to find out what is or isn't accounted for. I understand if you don't want to do that. For me, it's in my wheelhouse. And for that reason, because I've been blessed with world-class ability in this narrow slice of mental acuity, I try to offer it as a public service, and that's why I try to be scrupulously honest. I don't post bullshit, at least without acknowledging when I am just riffing without a strong basis for my opinions. The goal is for people to be able to rely on me in this regard.

Of course I'm not infallible, but I'm right a lot more frequently than I'm wrong. About these types of matters. There are other forms of judgments where I am much less reliable.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

The problem there isn't the science. It's that you're misusing it. Scientists would never dismiss unlikely threats as nugatory. In fact, one important purpose of science is specifically to discover threats that might not be immediately apparent.

No study is perfect. You're right. The antidote to that isn't relying on personal experience. It's learning how to read studies to find out what is or isn't accounted for. I understand if you don't want to do that. For me, it's in my wheelhouse. And for that reason, because I've been blessed with world-class ability in this narrow slice of mental acuity, I try to offer it as a public service, and that's why I try to be scrupulously honest. I don't post bullshit, at least without acknowledging when I am just riffing without a strong basis for my opinions. The goal is for people to be able to rely on me in this regard.

Of course I'm not infallible, but I'm right a lot more frequently than I'm wrong. About these types of matters. There are other forms of judgments where I am much less reliable.

That's great, but someone who reads a lot of studies who has never seen or experienced the kind of violence that is relatively common in the United States is not going to convince me to forego my ability to defend myself or my family. To each their own.

 

[superrific]

That's great, but someone who reads a lot of studies who has never seen or experienced the kind of violence that is relatively common in the United States is not going to convince me to forego my ability to defend myself or my family. To each their own.

Fine, but then don't say you're a big fan of science. The test of believing in science isn't when the science comports with your intuition or experience. It's when the science challenges your views otherwise established.

That sentence isn't exactly anti-science, but it's more anti-science than pro-science.

I don't care what you do in your home. I do care when you say silly things like guns need big mags because people can't shoot straight.

 

[heelinhell]

It is great that some people live in such security that they can make fun of those who don't. Ivory towers, and such. "Why would ahhyyee ever need to wear a life jacket, Jeeves? Of course I would just call the chopper to rescue me if this boat ever took on wahhh-ter."

Just to be clear I am mocking those who own guns who " live in such security " .

My guess is that cohort owns the majority of the 330+ million guns in America. I submit those are insecure about their masculinity and guns help assure them that they are potent. The other part of that cohort is the irrationally paranoid and subject to the claims that the boogeymen are coming to get you. But that contention is for another thread.

No doubt that there are many criminals who own guns. Let us focus on that.

No doubt there are those at risk for violent home intruders and own guns for their protection. I submit that those live in areas with inadequate police protection and even police indifference, but that contention is for another thread.

 

[wmheel1287]

I’m fine with that, provided there are carve-outs for going to and from a range or something like that.

That would be great progress in my opinion

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Fine, but then don't say you're a big fan of science. The test of believing in science isn't when the science comports with your intuition or experience. It's when the science challenges your views otherwise established.

That sentence isn't exactly anti-science, but it's more anti-science than pro-science.

I don't care what you do in your home. I do care when you say silly things like guns need big mags because people can't shoot straight.

Guns need adequate mags for two reasons.

1. Unless you shoot someone directly in the head or in the heart, people don't simply fall down and die after being shot once. It often takes numerous hits to incapacitate someone, particularly when you are using a handgun.

2. It is objectively much more difficult to be as accurate under fire as you are when you are simply at a firing range with no one shooting at you and a target that isn't continuously moving.

These statements are not opinions. They are facts, grounded in science.

 

[heelinhell]

That's great, but someone who reads a lot of studies who has never seen or experienced the kind of violence that is relatively common in the United States is not going to convince me to forego my ability to defend myself or my family. To each their own.

My apologies ... please disregard my previous post.

I did not realize you are living in a dangerous situation where you are concerned and need to defend yourself and your family from home intruders with guns

What is the high risk you are facing ? Have you encountered home invaders before ? Do you have little or no confidence that police where you live can protect you ?

I think if you could inform the board of your existential circumstances whereby you need guns to protect you and your family, it would help us and, certainly me, to be more understanding of your perspective.

 

[superrific]

Guns need adequate mags for two reasons.

1. Unless you shoot someone directly in the head or in the heart, people don't simply fall down and die after being shot once. It often takes numerous hits to incapacitate someone, particularly when you are using a handgun.

2. It is objectively much more difficult to be as accurate under fire as you are when you are simply at a firing range with no one shooting at you and a target that isn't continuously moving.

These statements are not opinions. They are facts, grounded in science.

And also being nervous that it's the real thing, I'd imagine. So, no I don't disagree with either of those statements. While I can't specifically vouch for their factual nature, I'm unwilling to dispute them.

But those two statements don't nearly resolve the issue. For one thing, killing a home invader really should not be the goal.