I like the "Some Asshole Initiative", but whatever works.
The press could still cover the events, they just would not name the perps. Hell, they could even dig into his motivation, they only would not show his face or give his name.
How much of an assault on the "people's right to know" would that really be?
There is an FBI study on mass shootings from 200-2013.
A few things of note:
- It's not only guys; of the 160 shootings studied, 6 of the shooters were women (less than 2%).
- Only two shootings involved multiple attackers.
- The frequency of the events is rising.
- Where the duration of the shooting could be determined, 69% were over in five minutes or less. 36% were over in two minutes.
- The majority of shooting ended when the shooter finished- whether he killed himself, just stopped shooting, or absconded.
- 5 shootings ended with an armed civilian intervened.
- 2 ended when off-duty cops intervened.
- 45 shootings ended in a gunfight with the cops.
- 46% of the shootings were in businesses of one kind or another. Of those shootings, 27% of the shooters were current or former employees.
- 24% were in schools.
- 10% were in government facilities.
Still, it may be helpful to keep a little perspective. In 14 years, 486 people were killed by mass shooters. There were 28 fires in 2014 that killed more than five people, 128 people died. Your chances of being caught up in a mass shooting are far less than your chances of dying in a fire or a motor vehicle accident. (Translation: If you carry a gun because you're concerned about mass shootings, but you don't have a fire extinguisher in your home and car, or you don't wear a seatbelt in your car, here's your sign.)
But as in fires, the first few people there have the best chance of stopping it.
2 comments:
Nice stats, but it emphasizes our lack of knowledge. Let's study the mass shootings and why they are rising. Here's a suggestion:
A group of 11 researchers, chosen as follows; NRA names 2, RNC names 2, Bloomberg's group names 1, Brady group names 1, DNC names 2. Then the 8 researchers select 3 more, by unanimous vote. That gives us a group with diverse backgrounds and agendas to review all the data and dig through everything the FBI and such have.
Gut reactions; violence on TV and games has something to do with it, not "causes" it, but...; lack of responsibility for security of guns and availability is an issue; armed civilians are less likely to intervene now having seen the police revealed as less than well trained, out of fear of getting capped by the responders; political polarization plays a role as the debate becomes more accusatory and less civil; the willingness of society to accept limitations on rights in exchange for "security" is an issue, it engenders a sheepish mindset.
Let's use some of my co-workers as an example. An overall well-educated and intelligent group, some of them scare me with their AR-15 purchases as they explain the why. They reveal a mindset that seems more violent and less tolerant then previous generations. Much more me, me, me and less us.
I don't care why they do it. I just want to see it stopped. And we do that by de-glamorizing these crimes. Like you said--stop making every one of these losers a celebrity and a hero to the next one. Don't name them, publish their manifesto, or talk for weeks about how they were victims of society and didn't have girlfriends. Just take them out and bury them in an unmarked grave with no fanfare. (And if they're still alive, same applies.) I think that most people with a brain know that these punks are doing it for the fame and notoriety now, so don't give it to them. And if the media outlets won't cooperate, their advertisers need to be hit with organized boycotts.
Normally I'm against interfering with a free press and suppressing stories that the government finds unfavorable, but heck--the Democrats have been doing it for years so it's not like that genie isn't well out of the bottle already.
Post a Comment