There Have Been 13 Mass School Shootings Since 1966, Not 27 This Year | Hacker News Reader

There Have Been 13 Mass School Shootings Since 1966, Not 27 This Year

reason.com

38 pointspessimizer72 comments

That's approximately one mass school shooting every 4 years. That's a _lot_.

Sure, there aren't 27 _mass_ school shootings, but the fact that someone can bring a gun to school and shoot someone - even just one person - that's scary.

And if we're looking at mass shootings in general, the GunViolence Archive has a list: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting - it's 9 pages long, and if I counted right there are over 200 of them already.

It's really not fun to be reminded of these stats, one can only hope something can be done about this. I won't pretend to know what that is, but it feels like we've done nothing and are already out of ideas.

> That's a _lot_.

Compared to what? What does it even mean to say that?

> It's really not fun to be reminded of these stats

We should be. In the 21st century convention of counting public health dangers in units of 9/11s, mass school shootings in the US are like a 9/11 every 1,108 years.

> Compared to what? What does it even mean to say that?

Compared to 0.

Compared to 0 on one side of the equation, and let’s say compared to a decade on the other side of the equation.

4 years is pretty often - once a leap year, or one in every US Presidents’ term (if you want to be political about it).

>Compared to what? What does it even mean to say that?

Compared to civilized countries.

Compared to zero????

"Less than four casualties - nothing to see here, move on people, all is well."

It’s an attempt to dehumanize the tragedy and blunt the response. Every murder in such a shooting is a life removed from loved ones.

LMAO of course Reason would publish this smug garbage.

Gotta love these people’s kneejerk impulse to pull a “well ACKSHUALLY, the most important thing is pointing out that this author’s usage of language is better than other authors!”

Should we care that we are being given blatantly and intentionally false data? Or should we throw logic out the window and just go with emotion?

Sure, intentionally false data is not good. Intentionally moving goal posts and then calling any data that doesn’t fit an arbitrary definition “false”is an example of said blatant intentional false data.

If I decide that a “mass school shooting” actually requires 5 people shot, the number of “mass school shootings” goes down! If I define it as 2 people shot, it goes up!

The topic of this article isn’t misinformation, the substance is. The only thing discussed is the author preferring one arbitrary definition over another. It’s literally about how he’s more clever than your average person.

Come on now, they literally cite where a gang member shooting another gang member at 1am near a school parking lot counts as a school shooting. Counting incidents like that when discussing Uvalde isn't even disingenuous, it's just a blatant lie.

I think society can agree that 13 Uvalde's since 1966 is too many, but when you try to convince everyone that nighttime gang shootings in the parking lot near a school at 1am is a "school shooting", well now people no longer believe anything you're saying. And that's a problem because it means we'll never reach consensus. It's almost like these people selling this bullshit don't want to actually solve the problem.

> It's almost like these people selling this bullshit don't want to actually solve the problem.

Couldn’t agree more strongly.

How can we ever reduce the number of dead kids from shootings without spending a huge amount of time deciding which Reason article’s belabored definition of “mass” is the best?

In your opinion, if that one gang related shooting was not categorized in a way that bothered you, how would it bring us closer to fixing this situation?

I can tell you didn't read the article, since most of the "school shootings" are versions of what I described, and not another Uvalde or Sandy Hook or Columbine.

So again, what is the goal of lying? We know it will make people not trust what's being said, which I would hope we can agree is not a good thing. So then, what is the reason for lying about the real numbers? Perhaps you can explain the logic, because I'm not understanding it.

I did read the article. The point I’ve made plainly is that it’s a silly exercise to focus on things like pedantry when discussing something so viscerally real as school shootings. There are people, such as the author and yourself, that prefer to focus on intangible things in the wake of real life events.

> So again, what is the goal of lying?

It depends:

Sometimes people with entrenched pro-gun ideals will use this tactic to avoid discussing actual solutions to reduce the future number of dead kids.

Sometimes people aren’t particularly pro-gun but have vague libertarian ideals and this sort of discussion feels more aligned to their worldview.

Sometimes there are people that legitimately do not give a shit about dead kids and only see an opportunity to flex their imagined mental muscles and try to impress internet strangers with their big scary brains. These people have only one interest: getting an internet stranger to say “You are right. You are smarter than me.” To that end they will move goalposts, feign outrage, accuse others of lying, etc. Lying absolutely serves the aims of these people and they engage in it gleefully.

With all due respect, you answered the question about what the goal of lying is with "it depends" and then didn't actually answer how the lying is anything other than a bad thing that causes more problems? Which was my point.

So it's not pedantic to say we should discuss real numbers. In fact, it would work better since we could all at least know we're being honest with each other, something lacking currently.

When you start off every conversation with a blatant lie and then call out "PEDANTRY" when called out on it. that will never lead to civil discourse or positive solutions. So why do it?

What is your definition of the word “goal”?

Example 1: The person focuses on abstract definitions of words like “mass” because they have a goal of avoiding meaningful discussion. This tactic of arguing about words accomplishes this goal.

Example 2: Arguing about words makes the poison feel good. Their goal of feeling good about themselves is accomplished.

Example 3: A cynical loser who only cares about looking clever online chooses to argue about abstract definitions of words… chooses to argue about abstract definitions. This accomplishes the goal of asserting their superior intellect and better understanding of the world.

Edit: LOL what is the blatant lie that I have repeatedly posted?

I’ve mostly expressed my opinion that the author of the article is a masturbatory idiot and people that parrot his silly chin stroking nonsense are equally masturbatory idiots. That… isn’t a lie. I genuinely believe that to be the case!

I'm asking what the goal of lying is because I'm giving the people lying the benefit of the doubt, that maybe they are in their minds telling a "noble lie" or that they are doing it for some actual reason.

If there is no "goal" to them lying about the numbers, then they're just lying to lie? Isn't that worse?

I guess I'm trying to understand why people would intentionally undermine their position from the start by using statistics that they know aren't accurate or that are intentionally misleading, knowing that it immediately undermines their argument.

So why would they do that? That's the question. You seem to be ok with them spinning a false narrative (ie. 27 "school shootings" this year) so I'm asking you since presumably you're ok with them starting the conversation with lies. Don't you understand that has the opposite of the intended effect?

> If there is no "goal" to them lying about the numbers, then they're just lying to lie? Isn't that worse?

You keep asking me a version of “what motivates these liars that don’t agree with Robby Soave’s definition of the word ‘mass’?”

I’m not really obligated to answer questions in order to support your world view.

Anyway, I keep responding with my thoughts about the people that I think are lying — namely Robby Soave and yourself. By “lying” I mean “intentionally or unintentionally misleading.”

I don’t know why it’s very important to you that the main focus of conversation after nineteen children get murdered is on the word “mass.” So I can’t really comment as to whether you’re lying on purpose or are just very misled yourself.

I personally see this weird bait-and-switch word game that’s popular amongst reactionaries and goofy libertarians as a net negative for everybody.

“Nineteen dead kids! I must rush to my keyboard to make sure that people use the word ‘mass’ in a way that’s commensurate with what I read in a Reason article!” is a deeply, deeply ridiculous and warped way of thinking. The people that respond to this sort of silly game aren’t lying to you. They just don’t respect your opinion because they see it as not serious. No matter hope many accusations and theoretical lies you throw around, nobody is required to respect you or your (LOL) opinions about words.

Your ad hominem attacks against someone who was at least being respectful is dragging down the vibe, more so than any amount of definitional hair splitting.

I genuinely believe that it’s a net positive to call out what appears to be blatant bad faith arguments, even when the bad faith argument is said politely.

Sorry for uh, “bringing down the vibe” in a discussion about how people are bickering about the statistical importance of dead kids to justify implicit biases. This conversation should have been more… jovial?

Who said anything about jovial? As I implied vibes can be about mutual respect.

There shouldn't be ANY mass shootings EVER. In what civilized society are we comfortable with one child being murdered at school let alone 19.

Yes, it's better for children to be murdered at home.

Two reasons to make it a lot harder to own guns!

Every high school has pot in it, which is illegal. Bans don't work. You can grow pot in a closet in a few months and you can make a gun in a garage in a few hours.

Banning things, whether abortion, drugs, guns, or books is a knee jerk reaction to an emotional trigger, and it's always ineffective.

This thinking is mental. The only thing that kills 19 kids in one hour is a psycho with a gun. This is exactly the time to deal with it as the only thing lack of action gives is more dead kids. Nobody needs these Rambo guns.

While it might be true given the exact numbers, it is not true in general that only a gun can cause such destruction; a vehicle can do just as much damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_atta...

> During the immediate of the ramming, five people were confirmed killed and forty-eight others were injured. The five dead were identified as four women and one man. Four of the dead were members of the Milwaukee Dancing Grannies, a dance group composed solely of grandmothers.

> Hospitals admitted 28 people, and nine were in critical condition. Seventeen children were among the wounded, three of whom remained hospitalized at Children's Wisconsin and listed in fair condition as of December 7. By November 23, the number of people reported injured had increased to 62 and the number of fatalities had increased to six after an eight-year-old child died at a hospital. The ages of the dead ranged from 8 to 81.

Or an airplane, if you count the 9/11 attacks. Or a knife: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings

> At 2:20 am on 26 July 2016, a man launched a knife attack at a center for the disabled people at Sagamihara, a town west of Tokyo, Japan. During the knife attack, 19 residents of the care center were killed, including nine men and ten women. An additional 26 people were wounded during the incident.

Yes, yes, guns allow for more lethal, more targeted, and more rapid destruction. But make no mistake, somebody armed with a machete could have entered a classroom and done just as much harm. Someone driving a car into a crowd of kids crossing the street can do just as much harm. Guns are not the root cause, nor are they an enabler of the behavior any more than any other device.

Same old tired false arguments and a refusal to note that America is uniquely afflicted by gun violence among its peers, no that doesn’t mean dredge up stats on Nigerian crime in Lagos, but look precisely at Australia putting the lie to “but gun control doesn’t work”

And yet guns are more popular than ever, with millions of new gun owners every year and gun laws being rolled back in dozens of states. A new generation of safe, responsible gun owners across race and gender lines is blossoming all over the nation.

And a few bad apples, I see… might want to regulate your thing there before some bad apples get it taken away from you and ruin the party

Responsible gun owners overwhelmingly favor basic regulations. The NRA are the only fanatics trying to stop any regulations.

Quite wrong, we already have too many gun laws, and the NRA are partially responsible. But we're working on that.

If you were determined, you could probably produce a gas that would kill 19 students in a minute with the things you could find in a high school chem lab.

But is this something actually happening on any regular basis anywhere? No.

America uniquely experiences higher levels of gun violence than it’s developed peers simply due to the ridiculous notion that no regulations on guns are acceptable.

Your argument wouldn’t hold water if we were talking about motor vehicles and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

I see nothing about “ the right for every wacko to have an arsenal is sacred”

One of those things is produced in a heavy machinery factory...

No, myself and thousands of other Americans legally manufacture firearms in their garage with very simple, commonplace tools. If you saved up a few months worth of aluminum cans, you could do it all from that, except for the barrel and a few springs.

And that sort of arm couldn’t fire off 1000 rounds. A homemade gun is more likely to blow up in your hands than hit its target, or are you an actual gunsmith ?

The fact is: such homemade arms have never once been used in a school shooting.

Uh, beyond our differences of opinion here, point of fact, people make completely functional ARs and other modern weapons from scratch at home. I have thousands of rounds through several of mine.

Let me ask you this, how many kids need to die each week from Rambo weapons at school before you change your tune? 1? 10? 100? 1000? How many???

How many drunk driving deaths before you quit drinking? It's created for no reason but to impair judgement.

Then why does gun control work in every other country but USA?

It’s not an honest answer. A homemade zip gun can’t pop 1000 rounds off, sorry.

Do just a single Google search, friend, on home manufacture of firearms.

You are right. One child is one too many. Let's ban schools once and for all.

This is the type of response which shows why bodies pile up. We need the Rambo weapons destroyed.

It is clearly impossible to guarantee a kid was never murdered at school. And if you where to try and impose such a restrictive regime on kids as to get to 0 you would certainly due more damage to the the kids then help.

There are different definitions of mass shootings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting

I am wondering whether the data can be crunched and find a pattern to mass killings where we can sensibly cut down on the mass killings. Is the perpetrator in a certain age range, easy access to guns, does the school raised the kid or are parents involved, played lots of first person shooter games, were the guns illegally obtained, what type of weapons used? I am not sure what sort of stats are collected, but there are some very smart people at finding patterns. Can a pattern be found that we can make use of AND have both left and right agree to do something to cut the number mass killing incidents?

The pattern is open easy access to military grade weaponry by literally anyone, previously threatening others notwithstanding.

Kids who can’t even have a legal beer can walk into a shop or gun show and walk out with an arsenal.

Lawmakers beholden to the NRA and/or Republican ideology will make sure to block - waiting periods - limits of any kind.

Remember, driving a car is a PRIVILEGE but these radical extremists believe that unfettered access to guns for ALL is a human right.

I don’t see anything about such right in the second amendment. I DO see the words “well regulated militia” and suspect that this is not an Oathkeeper party…

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Just like Roe v Wade didn't get into abortion law specifics it's up to the current SCOTUS to interpret - that's how the constitution works bud.

If you want to complain about something fixable, how about you focus on the fact that the checks and balances in his country's federal government no longer exist and call for congressional term limits? That'd be a start to straightening out this nation's problems rather than pretending everything is fine and quibbling about guns (which have existed in this country in larger numbers than people since its founding)?

I agree, one can definitely go on a long rant about this. The common person has little input into the election process, it is the corporations and the powerful that have far more input into the laws. I think a lot of the hot button issues, like abortion, are probably smoke screens to distract the common people from noticing what is happening behind the scenes. Politics are so polarized, that people vote with their party and rarely cross the line.

Precisely and if you know the history and story of US intervention in sovereign nations and our habitual need to meddle in foreign elections as well as understand the role of the IMF, World Bank and WEF to be aids / tools in promoting US hegemony and neo-imperialism around the globe as well as ways the West extracts wealth from the global South, the picture and situation looks that much more sinister, evil and grim.

Lets put some caveats on this. 2nd ammendment is not going away, regardless or one's interpretation of it. Also, the firearms manufactures have a very strong lobby... So, can we find pattern that can be exploited to cut down on the mass killings that the powerful entities can agree to? Also, the guns don't kill people, it is the person using the gun. Is there something that can be detected personality wise, like low empathy? Is there a graduated gun ownership? (There could be grade of deadliness of the weapon and one can't buy/own grade 2 until one buys owns grade 1 for 5 years or something.) A friend pointed out that nobody with a concealed weapons permit had commited a mass killing, perhaps force people through that training.

FYI - if all guns are taken away, it will not stop mass killings. It just makes it more challenging for said individuals. The goverenment can't realistically ban the items used to make a molotov cocktail. One of those could actually be more deadly than a firearm in a crowded location...

This just seems like unnecessary pedantry. I’m sure majority people concerned about school shooting never intend to argue about some legalistic definition of what makes something “mass”. Aside from that the words “mass shooting” and “school shooting” constantly being used by the media surely has made colloquial usage of the terms more common in everyday discussions than whatever definition the bureaucrats use.

> Don't conflate mass shootings with school shootings

Ok. There shouldn't be either of these though

Alright, we have successfully destroyed all 400,000,000 guns in the US. What do these disturbed young men, who would murder children if given the opportunity, do? Are they magically cured? Or do they rent a U-Haul and drive through a little league game? what do we do that at that point? or do you make concessions and argue semantics and degrees of lethality?

Take from them the toy made to kill, _and_ fix the society.

From abroad, the US sometimes looks like a country of frustrated, violent, ignorant people, where the ability to produce money is the only value given to civilization.

Or is the whole world like that? Sure I am between the aliens on this planet - those thinking human killing-other-human shouldn’t even exist.

Let’s follow that thread about moving to another galaxy, it gives me more hopes :)

> What do these disturbed young men, who would murder children if given the opportunity, do?

Have you looked at every other country for evidence of what they might do? I feel there is a lot of evidence there to answer your question.

I don't know, but most other countries manage just fine. I've never heard of children running people over for fun in these places.

Ah Reason mag gaslighting Americans into thinking any attempts at gun control are overreactions and ill-advised.

Unreasonable would be a better name for this unholy spawn of the Cato Institute and the Federalist society. I love the concerned veneer they put on their contempt for life on earth.

Well, their tally is inaccurate due to them bikeshedding the amount of dead students required to call it a “mass” shooting.

One is too many.

The entirety of the second amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

But don’t let actual knowledge stop these guys from inventing a complicated interpretation that you and I could never understand… like Alito’s leaked opinion: legal coleslaw that reflects a priori dictates the people who installed him want turned into laws.

But back to Unreasonable mag, know they no shame?

[deleted]

Wait, did you just insinuate that you have the right to overthrow the government if you deem it tyrannical?

You don’t.

That’s called a partisan coup and the rest of us object to you doing that to us at the point of a barrel of a gun.

I take downvote from you as a badge of honor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

[deleted]

Re downvote, my bad must be someone else.

Só, on to this myth that needs to die: the US Constitution most certainly doesn’t provide for violent overthrow of the government by one group of citizens.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and if it hadn’t reflected the actual will of the people in that time and place, would have exposed the would be revolutionaries to punishment as mere criminals. In the words of a certain founding father “we surely must hang together or we shall all hang separately “

Treason is the charge.

Só, get that out of your head. Read our actual constitution!

It’s a really short document, actually, and full of evidence of people arguing about topics, but no where does it provide for violent overthrow

The actual entire US constitution

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

There is no such legal right to violent recourse.

Zero.

Só, the notion of keeping guns in case you feel like overthrowing the government is NOT constitutional.

The constitution DOES provide for peaceful transfers of power between elected officials.

Read our actual founding document instead of repeating lies:

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

So, 1) there’s no constitutional reference at all to any right to violent overthrow or any such nonsense, as a cursory read of the US constitution will establish. Zero . https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

2) you complain about political division but then somehow think that a unified group known as “the people” will join together in overthrowing their own democratic government?

Uhhh that’s a recipe for civil war. My armed group doesn’t agree with your armed group, which one of us is “the people”?

How about for soft targets like schools we start by locking the dang doors, securing the property and screening everybody that comes and goes?

They seem to more more concerned with keeping people inside.

When you do stuff like that, people complain that you're running the school too much like a prison.

No, that would be using your brain and might risk us not being able to reach for the easiest to grab / lowest hanging fruit to trash our constitution with and not solve any actual problem by shilling for.

Every school does that already. New schools are built with vestibule entrances and surveillance systems.

I’m perturbed that someone is always lying to us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com