I get your point about motive, but I’d argue it’s only relevant depending on your argument. If the argument is “we need gun control and government buy-backs to reduce gun violence through the availability of firearms” then using mass shooting statistics as defined by the gun violence archive is relevant. If the argument is “we need better mental health facilities to prevent people enacting public mass violence intentionally” your perspective is relevant.
Honestly thought, I would argue the US is so far down the hole any measure is better than nothing. Either fix gun ownership, the insane number of guns on the market, the mental health crisis, or any of these at once and you’ll see improvements. Anything but “thoughts and prayers”.
My personal belief is that the Gun Violence Archive is disingenuous in their definition and they phrase things the way they do in order to scare as many people as possible.
What I’d like to see is a case by case analysis of what went wrong, then take steps to correct for it. Do that enough times and the problem goes away.
Cops knew he was a threat a week before the shooting, but thought he was too dangerous to confront. O_O Wouldn’t that be the ideal reason to confront him?
Agreed, that is pretty ridiculous in its own right. It does show how the police aren’t there to “serve and protect” though, which really makes you wonder what their purpose is in modern society.
“The Supreme Court ruled on Monday (June, 2005) that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”
I get your point about motive, but I’d argue it’s only relevant depending on your argument. If the argument is “we need gun control and government buy-backs to reduce gun violence through the availability of firearms” then using mass shooting statistics as defined by the gun violence archive is relevant. If the argument is “we need better mental health facilities to prevent people enacting public mass violence intentionally” your perspective is relevant.
Honestly thought, I would argue the US is so far down the hole any measure is better than nothing. Either fix gun ownership, the insane number of guns on the market, the mental health crisis, or any of these at once and you’ll see improvements. Anything but “thoughts and prayers”.
My personal belief is that the Gun Violence Archive is disingenuous in their definition and they phrase things the way they do in order to scare as many people as possible.
What I’d like to see is a case by case analysis of what went wrong, then take steps to correct for it. Do that enough times and the problem goes away.
Did you see the latest on the Maine shooter?
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/authorities-knew-maine-shooter-was-a-threat-but-felt-confronting-him-was-unsafe-video-shows/
Cops knew he was a threat a week before the shooting, but thought he was too dangerous to confront. O_O Wouldn’t that be the ideal reason to confront him?
Agreed, that is pretty ridiculous in its own right. It does show how the police aren’t there to “serve and protect” though, which really makes you wonder what their purpose is in modern society.
Oh, man, people have NO idea, this is from almost 20 years ago now:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
“The Supreme Court ruled on Monday (June, 2005) that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”
Exactly what I was referring to actually.