[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Trump To Address Nation Monday Over Mass Shootings, Says More Gun Control May Be Needed Source: Zero Hedge URL Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019 ... more-gun-control-may-be-needed Published: Aug 4, 2019 Author: Tyler Durden Post Date: 2019-08-05 10:44:33 by Deckard Keywords: None Views: 4483 Comments: 57 In the wake of multiple mass shootings over the weekend, President Trump told reporters in Morristown Airport before departing for the White House on Sunday that "hate has no place in our country and we're going to take care of it." As The Hill reports, Congressional Democrats, 2020 presidential candidates and others have rushed to draw comparisons between the motives of the El Paso shooter and Trump’s immigration rhetoric and suggested he helped fuel the environment that led to the attack. “Let’s be very clear about what is causing this and who the president is. He is an open avowed racist and encouraging more racism in this country,” former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), whose hometown is El Paso, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Notably, however, even Trump nemesis, former FBI Director, Jim Comey admitted in his latest op-ed (albeit in the 20th paragraph) that: "...according to a 'manifesto' widely attributed to him, the Texas terrorist who killed at least 20 people in El Paso on Saturday wasn’t directly motivated by Donald Trump..." The president ignored shouted questions about whether the El Paso shooter's anti-immigrant manifesto shared similarities with his rhetoric and noted instead that the shootings are part of “a mental illness problem.” The president then added that he had spoken to Attorney General William Barr, FBI Director Christopher Wray, the Ohio and Texas governors as well as members of Congress. “We have to get it stopped,” he said. “This has been going on for years, for years and years in our country.” He added that "perhaps" more needs to be done with respect to gun control.  Trump added that he will deliver a formal statement on Monday at 10 a.m. Monday at the White House. On Saturday, a gunman entered an El Paso, Texas Walmart, killing 20 people and wounding 26 others. Less than 24 hours later, at least nine people were killed and 26 more injured when 24-year-old Connor Betts of Bellbrook Ohio used a .223 caliber rifle to open fire at a crowd on East 5th street in the city's popular downtown Oregon district. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41. #1. To: Deckard (#0) Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning. You are not going to legislate away occurrances that are already extremely rare. Pinguinite  posted on  2019-08-05   11:26:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Pinguinite (#1) Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning. Do you really believe that you can equate random physical characteristics of the Universe with irrational human behavior? buckeroo  posted on  2019-08-05   22:36:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: buckeroo, Pinguinite (#8) Pinguinite: Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning. Buekeroo: Do you really believe that you can equate random physical characteristics of the Universe with irrational human behavior? That was a really stupid question to ask. You must remember that Pinguinite is a libertarian. Anyone using sound practical judgment and having a discerning mind would be fully conscious of the fact that libertarians believe only what they want to believe. Therefore, instead of asking such a dumbass question – just check the data? Had you checked, then you would have found references showing the odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125 while the odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831. Conclusion: So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes. After realizing that we all have just witnessed one libertarian, Bucky, asking another libertarian, Pinguinite, if he “really believes” something – Then, this has gotta be the funniest thing we have read in a long while. Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-09   4:08:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Gatlin (#13) 1 in 11,125 That number is bullshit. That would mean there are 29393 people killed in mass shootings in the usa each year. Not true. Which would mean 81 killed each day in mass shootings. I don't believe that. A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-09   6:58:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: A K A Stone (#14) [The statistical odds of death in mass shooting (US only) is} 1 in 11,125 That number is bullshit. Bullshit? That would mean there are 29393 people killed in mass shootings in the usa each year. Not true. That [the computation of statistical odds] in no way mans “there are 29393 people killed in mass shootings in the usa each year. Which of course, is definitely “not true.” Which would mean 81 killed each day in mass shootings. I don't believe that. I don’t believe that either because the “statistical odds” does not “mean 81 killed each day in mass shootings. So, let’s examine what is true and what to believe. To begin, we must first understand that “statistical odds” are an “expression of relative probabilities” and in no way a prediction of something that will happen – is expected to happen – or a validation of anything that has happened. Are we clear on this? Hoping that we are, then let’s delve deeper and understand ... … the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials. Probabilities always range between 0 and 1. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur. Now that we have that clear, we can then understand that if the probability of an event occurring is Y, then the probability of the event not occurring is 1- Y. I will cite you an example for further clarification: If the probability of an event is 0.80 (80%), then the probability that the event will not occur is 1-0.80 = 0.20, or 20%. So, we can now understand that the odds of an event represent the ratio of the (probability that the event will occur) / (probability that the event will not occur). Actually this can be expressed a follows in a formula: Odds of event = Y / (1-Y) In summary: The “statistical odds” by design allows for the calculation of a “relative risk” and should NEVER be looked upon as a “prediction.” I trust you now have a better perspective … Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-09   8:24:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Gatlin (#15) Are we clear on this? No we are not even close. That statistics if determined by dividing the number of people in the country by the number of incidents. It is that simple. Made up numbers from your source are irrelevant. A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-09   8:29:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: A K A Stone (#16) That statistics if determined by dividing the number of people in the country by the number of incidents. That be true of something that HAS happened, which is the way you are looking at it. That is not what the source was looking at. The number the source quoted is the “statistical probability” that something CAN happen. Are we closer to understanding? Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-09   8:41:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: A K A Stone (#17) You find the number “1-in-11,125” at a number of different source calculations. You can argue with ‘them” is you wish to. I have no reason to. I have obviously done a poor job of sharing this information with you, for which I apologize. Perhaps you can better understand the information if you read The odds that a gun will kill the average American may surprise you at https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3. This is yet another source that shows assaults by firearm kill about 13,000 people in the US each year, and this translates to a roughly 1-in-315 lifetime chance of death from gun violence. It also shows that the risk of dying in a mass shooting is about 35 times lower than that, with a 1-in-11,125 lifetime chance of death. This all I can possibly say on this. Enjoy your day … Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-09   9:22:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Gatlin (#18) You find the number “1-in-11,125” at a number of different source calculations. You can argue with ‘them” is you wish to. I have no reason to. I have no reason to either. My comparison of deaths was lightning to mass shootings, not death by gunfire, which maybe you were too stupid to understand. Pinguinite  posted on  2019-08-09   11:03:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: Pinguinite (#20) (Edited) Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning. My comparison of deaths was lightning to mass shootings, not death by gunfire, which maybe you were too stupid to understand. The question: “Is mass shooting deaths on par with getting killed by lightning?” No it isn’t. I would need to be really stupid – which I of course am not – to understand and believe the fake statistic you pulled out of your libertarian ass. In 2007, 45 people were killed by lightning in the USA. The average is 31 deaths per year. https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning- fatalities17 Last year there were 334 mass shootings resulting in 606 deaths. Overall there were 10,982 firearms homicides, not suicides, just murders. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the- u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls You are over 19 times more likely to be killed in a mass shooting and 486 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than killed by lightning in the USA. Conclusion: Mass shooting deaths are DEFINITELY NOT on par with getting killed by lightning. Dictionary Definition of “on a par with” means “equal to.” Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-09   14:21:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Gatlin (#22) Last year there were 334 mass shootings resulting in 606 deaths. Overall there were 10,982 firearms homicides, not suicides, just murders. I don't know where you get the mass shooting numbers you cite. Certainly don't see them on the link you gave. Also, using the "mass shooting" definition of 4 or more shooting deaths from a single incident, your stat doesn't fly because 606 deaths on 334 "mass shootings" only comes to an average of 1.8 deaths per "mass shooting". Wanna try again? Pinguinite  posted on  2019-08-09   15:32:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Pinguinite (#23) … using the "mass shooting" definition of 4 or more shooting deaths from a single incident … No, you CANNOT ARBITARILY use a number you selected to define a “mass shooting.” Stop with the “using” shit. You libertarians continually lie and cheat to try to support your positions. I will never let you do that with me. There is no definition of the term "mass shooting" with respect to qny number of deaths. Dammit – You knew that yet you try to sleeze something by me. A mass shooting by its very nature is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-09   16:17:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Gatlin, Pinguinite (#24) [Pinguinite #23] … using the "mass shooting" definition of 4 or more shooting deaths from a single incident … [Gatlin #24] There is no definition of the term "mass shooting" with respect to qny number of deaths. Here is a legal definition of mass killing. "(I) the term 'mass killings' means 3 or more killings in a single incident." Public Law 112-265; 126 STAT. 2435. Carry on. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ265/html/PLAW-112publ265.htm [112th Congress Public Law 265] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [[Page 126 STAT. 2435]] Public Law 112-265 112th Congress An Act To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for other purposes. NOTE: Jan. 14, 2013 - [H.R. 2076] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, NOTE: Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012. 6 USC 101 note. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012''. SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN VIOLENT ACTS, SHOOTINGS, AND MASS KILLINGS. (a) Attorney General.--Title 28, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in section 530C(b)(1)(L)(i), by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting ``$3,000,000''; and (2) in section 530C(b)(1), by adding at the end the following-- ``(M)(i) At the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a State or political subdivision, the Attorney General may assist in the investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use and in the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings. Any assistance provided under this subparagraph shall be presumed to be within the scope of Federal office or employment. ``(i) <> For purposes of this subparagraph-- ``(I) the term `mass killings' means 3 or more killings in a single incident; and ``(II) the term `place of public use' has the meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code.''. [...] nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-09   21:53:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: nolu chan (#40) (Edited) nolu chan: Here is a legal definition of mass killing. "(I) the term 'mass killings' means 3 or more killings in a single incident." Public Law 112-265; 126 STAT. 2435. Thank you for this. This shows that I incorrectly stated: “There is ‘no’ definition of the term "mass shooting" with respect to any number of deaths.” I now stand corrected. I had never seen this law and I concede there may be some other restricted instances of which I am unaware. My original intent remains the same – that was to show there is no universally accepted numbers pf deaths. That was the point I was making to Pinguinite when he arbitrarily used the number four. You have pointed out where in one case restricted to the DOJ “the term mass killings means 3 or more killings in a single incident” when used “to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice when Public Law Public Law 112-265; 126 STAT. 2435 [Date Approved: January 14, 2013] is applied and is used “to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes […] Media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies [the definition for the DOJ is discussed above] frequently use different definitions when discussing mass shootings, leading to different assessments of how frequently mass shootings occur and whether they are more common now than they were a decade or two ago. Mass Shootings: Definitions and Trends In this essay, we provide an overview of mass shootings, one of the eight outcomes examined in our research syntheses. We first describe different approaches for defining a mass shooting and then discuss how using different definitions [Emphasis Added] can influence estimates of mass shooting levels and trends. The information was collected from a targeted search of the literature separate from that outlined in the methodology description. What Is a Mass Shooting? In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). However, the government has never defined mass shooting as a separate category, and there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term. Thus, media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies frequently use different definitions when discussing mass shootings, which can complicate our understanding of mass shooting trends and their relationship to gun policy. The table below provides examples of the variation in the criteria set by five of the most commonly referenced data sources on mass shootings in the United States. Although there is no official standard for the casualty threshold that distinguishes a mass shooting from other violent crimes involving a firearm, a common approach in the literature is to adopt the FBI’s criteria for a mass murderer and set a casualty threshold of four fatalities by firearm, excluding the offender or offenders (Duwe, ­Kovandzic, and Moody, 2002; Krouse and Richardson, 2015; Gius, 2015c; Fox and Fridel, 2016). However, this categorization is not without controversy. It does not capture incidents in which fewer than four victims were killed but additional victims were injured, and it does not include multiple-victim homicides in which fewer than four fatalities resulted from gunshots but additional fatalities occurred by other means. Additionally, the FBI classification of mass murderer was established primarily with the aim of clarifying criminal profiling procedures, not for the purpose of data collection or statistical ­analysis (Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas, 1988). Thus, many have chosen alternative definitions of casualty thresholds for mass shootings. For instance, Lott and Landes (2000) adopted the definition of two or more injured victims, the Gun Violence Archive (undated-a) defined mass shooting as an incident in which four or more victims (excluding the shooter) are injured or killed, and Mass Shooting Tracker (undated) set a criterion of four or more people injured or killed (including the shooter). Another definitional disagreement is whether to include multiple-victim shooting incidents that occur in connection with some other crime or domestic dispute. Because mass shootings that stem from domestic and gang violence are contextually distinct from high-fatality indiscriminate killings in public venues, some have argued that they should be treated separately. In their analyses of “mass public shootings,” Lott and Landes (2000) excluded any felony-related shooting, and Duwe, Kovandzic, and Moody (2002) excluded incidents where “both the victims and offender(s) were involved in unlawful activities, such as organized crime, gang activity, and drug deals” (p. 276). Similarly, Gius (2015c) restricted analysis to events that occurred in a relatively public area and in which victims appeared to have been selected randomly. However, others have claimed that this narrow definition ignores a substantial proportion of gun-related violence from family- or felony-related murder (Fox and Levin, 2015). Data collection efforts by Mass Shooting Tracker and the Gun Violence Archive thus counted all incidents that met their designated casualty threshold as mass shootings, regardless of the circumstances that led to the event. These definitions matter. Depending on which data source is referenced, there were seven, 65, 332, or 371 mass shootings in the United States in 2015 (see table below), and those are just some examples. More-restrictive definitions (e.g., Mother Jones) focus on the prevalence of higher-profile events motivated by mass murder, but they omit more-common incidents occurring in connection with domestic violence or criminal activity, which make up about 80 percent of mass shooting incidents with four or more fatally injured victims (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). Broader definitions (e.g., Mass Shooting Tracker) provide a more comprehensive depiction of the prevalence of gun violence, but they obscure the variety of circumstances in which these incidents take place and their associated policy implications. Furthermore, if the effects of a firearm policy are expected to affect only public mass shooting incidents, then analysis that includes domestic violence mass shootings in the outcome measure could obscure identification of significant effects that would be found in a more targeted analysis of public mass shootings alone. There is thus value in having multiple measurements of mass shootings—but only if their definitions are clearly and precisely explained and they are used by researchers in a manner appropriate to the analysis. Variation in How Mass Shootings Are Defined and Counted Chart presented here. Are Mass Shootings on the Rise? In 2014, the FBI released a study showing that “active shooting incidents” had increased at an average annual rate of 16 percent between 2000 and 2013 (Blair and Schweit, 2014). In contrast to the varied definitions for mass shootings, there is an agreed-upon definition among government agencies for active shooter: “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2008, p. 2). Using a modified version of this definition to include incidents that had multiple offenders or occurred in confined spaces, Blair and Schweit (2014) found that active shootings had increased from only one incident in 2000 to 17 in 2013. The FBI study (Blair and Schweit, 2014) highlighted several key issues in determining trends in mass shootings. First, the absence of a systematic definition of mass shootings can lead to misinterpretation of reported evidence. While the study explicitly stated, “This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings” (p. 5), extensive media coverage cited the study as evidence of a sharp rise in mass shootings and mass shooting fatalities (Lott, 2015). However, the definition of an active-shooter incident is broader than any of the commonly used criteria for mass shootings (see table above) because it does not set any casualty threshold. Of the 160 active-shooter incidents included in the FBI’s analysis, 7 percent resulted in zero casualties, 20 percent resulted in zero fatalities, and 22 percent resulted in a single fatality (Lott, 2015). Setting a threshold of zero victims increases the potential for measurement error, because shooting incidents with no casualties are more difficult to identify from police records and are less likely to receive media coverage (Duwe, Kovandzic, and Moody, 2002). Additionally, because it should be relatively easier to identify more-recent shootings with few fatalities, a low casualty threshold will tend to systematically bias estimates of the number of shootings upward over time. For example, the Stanford Mass Shootings in America database, which relies solely on online media sources to identify mass shooting events, cautions its users, “Data in the [database] spans a time period that includes the transition from traditional media to digital media in reporting. Numbers of incidents per year should at least in part be assumed to reflect this collection methodology and not just changes in incident frequency.” Thus, the more than threefold surge in mass shooting incidents from 2014 to 2015 shown in the Stanford data likely reflects increased online reporting and not necessarily a true increase in the rate of mass shootings. Even when a more restrictive casualty threshold of four or more fatally injured victims (excluding the shooter) is imposed, empirical evidence on trends in these incidents varies depending on whether the motivation of the shooter is included as a criterion for considering an event a mass shooting. In their analysis of mass shooting trends from 1999 to 2013, Krouse and Richardson (2015) distinguished between mass shootings occurring in public locations that are indiscriminate in nature (“mass public shootings”), mass shootings in which the majority of victims are members of the offender’s family and that are not attributable to other criminal activity (“familicide mass shootings”), and mass shootings that occur in connection to some other criminal activity (“other felony mass shootings”). The two figures below show trends in these types of mass shooting incidents and fatalities, respectively, using the data provided in Krouse and Richardson (2015). Extending the data back to the 1970s, two studies found evidence of a slight increase in the frequency of mass public shootings over the past three decades (Cohen, Azrael, and Miller, 2014; Krouse and Richardson, 2015). However, using an expanded definition that includes domestic- or felony-related killings, there is little evidence to suggest that mass shooting incidents or fatalities have increased (Cohen, Azrael, and Miller, 2014; Krouse and Richardson, 2015; Fox and Fridel, 2016). Thus, different choices about how to define a mass shooting result in different findings for both the prevalence of these events at a given time and whether their frequency has changed over time. Trends in Mass Shooting Incidents, by Type of Incident Graphs presented here. Definitional issues aside, the relative rarity of mass shooting events makes analysis of trends particularly difficult. Chance variability in the annual number of mass shooting incidents makes it challenging to discern a clear trend, and trend estimates will be sensitive to outliers and to the time frame chosen for analysis. For example, while Krouse and Richardson (2015) found evidence of an upward trend in mass public shootings from 1999 to 2013, they noted that the increase was driven largely by 2012, which had an unusually high number of mass public shooting incidents. Additionally, Lott (2015) showed that the FBI study’s estimate of a dramatic increase in active-shooter incidents was largely driven by the choice of 2000 as the starting date, because that year had an unusually low number of shooting incidents; extending the analysis to cover 1977 onward and adjusting the data to exclude events with fewer than two fatalities, Lott (2015) found a much smaller and statistically insignificant increase (less than 1 percent annually) in mass shooting fatalities over time. Conclusions While different choices about how to define a mass shooting [Boldness Added] and the period over which to calculate mass shooting trends have resulted in disagreement about whether the frequency of mass shootings has risen, there is clear evidence that the media’s use of the term mass shooting has increased significantly over recent decades (Roeder, 2016). [Boldness Added] Unfortunately, the ambiguity in how mass shootings are defined and counted may result in increased media coverage influencing public perception without better informing our understanding of the prevalence of mass shootings or their determinants, trends, social costs, or policy implications. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html Your attention to detail, nolu, in all matters is commendable. You are a definite asset to this forum as a channel to clarity. Thank You for your many contributions. Gatlin  posted on  2019-08-10   3:36:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 41.         There are no replies to Comment # 41. End Trace Mode for Comment # 41. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com