After every mass public shooting, the media immediately pushes a narrative that it’s only in America that such tragedies occur. Even former President Barack Obama commonly repeated the claim following the mass shootings that occurred during his administration.
“This type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency,” Obama said back in 2015.
Is that true – and if so, what can be done? First, let’s define what a mass shooting (and mass public shooting) is.
“Mass shooting” typically refers to mass killings perpetrated by a firearm or firearms. In 2013, Congress defined “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.” For a mass killing to be defined as a “mass public shooting” such murders must occur in absence of other criminal activity (robberies, drug deals gone bad, and gang shootouts), and there must be at least four killed, as opposed to three.
So with that in mind, how common are such events? The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal has the stats:
- Mass killings are rare, and thus it makes no sense to base gun control policy around them, when most gun related deaths are not in mass public shootings.
- Mass killings account for only 0.2 percent of homicides every year
- Only 12 percent of mass killings are mass public shootings. Most mass killings are familicides (murders of family members or intimate partners) and felony-related killings (such as robberies gone awry or gang-related “turf battles”)
And here are some statistics that have implications regarding some control measures that have recently been proposed.
- Over 90 percent of public mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones” where civilians are not permitted to carry firearms.
- A complete ban on “assault weapons” will save very few lives: Six out of every 10 mass public shootings are carried out by handguns alone, while only one in 10 is committed with a rifle alone.
- The average age of mass public shooters is 34, which means that increasing the minimum age for purchasing firearms would not target the main perpetrators of mass public shootings.
- Few mass public shooters have used “high-capacity magazines,” and there is no evidence that the lethality of their attacks would have been affected by delays of two to four seconds to switch magazines. In fact, some of the largest mass shootings in U.S. history were carried out with “low-capacity” weapons:
While there’s unquestionably an urge to “do something” after mass public shootings, no gun control proponent has yet to suggest a gun control policy that would actually reduce such tragedies.
Share this you believe the proposed “solutions” to mass shootings are never going to work.
See the latest
How many people comment on these type questions are nothing more than liberal trolls? A HUGE proportion. Anyone paying attention to the stories and comments on this topic over the last year should notice all the comments that are “in lock step” with the liberal agenda. Those of us who follow and comment with common sense are usually hit from all sides with snarky comments from people who haven’t got a brain. Note Marilyn commenting here.
” They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” – Saul Alinsky
Don’t misunderstand – open borders will make it so much easier to smuggle guns into the country – un-traceable guns too…….and weapons far worse than the gun will ever be.
Let’s do away with gun free zones. Let’s have guns in school, congress, workplace, presidential speeches, Ted Nugent concerts.
I asked to bring my gun into a Ted Nugent concert and was turned away by Ted Nugent’s people. They wouldn’t let me bring my gun in his concert… AND HE IS PRO GUN (and murder).
more guns = more death
Marilyn: No.
@ Marilyn – ironic how your side fails to ever mention how many people have been protected by the gun. Like your heroes who live behind huge fenced and gated compounds with fully armed security.
The gun is an inanimate object it has no ability to control itself it takes a person to operate it in most cases. Why do you never rant about the lunatics who commit these atrocities? The police and FBI who were warned in advance that a crazy person was about to go off and yet did nothing. The Broward Sheriff’s Office whose deputies showed up on the scene of the Parkland shooting and hid behind their cars in the parking lot. YOur anger is misdirected.
NRA supports mass murderers.
What is the going pay for being a propaganda schill?
1-2 million assaults did NOT happen last year because the intended victim was armed. Out of those, as many more people would have died as were murdered by guns anyway. So, if you get rid of guns SOME of the gun murders would not happen (but some would be committed with illegal guns or knives or baseball bats), while ALL of the thwarted assaults would succeed (since honest people would follow the law).
You are a hateful person who wants those assaults to succeed, and for crime to increase.
How many people here would accept the gun death of your child or loved one by an idiot gun wielder? Those are the mass murderers!I Idiot gun holders whom the NRA and others support.
Marilyn: “NRA supports mass murderers.” …Again, No. Also:
The Mass Shootings Aren’t About Guns, They’re About Our Culture
https://townhall.com/columnists/dwwilber/2018/02/22/the-mass-shootings-arent-about-guns-theyre-about-our-culture-n2452735
Liberal Statistician Admits Gun Control isn’t the Answer
https://constitution.com/liberal-statistician-admits-gun-control-isnt-answer/
I would hate it, madder then hell. That being said, I would not expect the constitution to be amended because of it.
@Marilyn apparently you are fine with it since you want an additional 1-2 million assaults to succeed each year – some of which would have been preventable child deaths if only an honest mother / father/ or other nearby citizen had been armed with a gun.
You can’t stop aggression nor assaults by eliminating guns – they only get committed by other means.
Marilyn, how many people do you know who would accept the death of a child at the hands of a Planned Parenthood doctor?