Strong gun regulations have a couple of orders of magnitude impact on one type of gun violence, but you think that’s irrelevant and off-topic to whether strong gun regulations would have an impact on another form of gun violence?

How could that make any sense?

> I think you're basically ignoring my point

You didn’t clarify that by “everything that’s happening” as the preface to your suggestion that gun control is pointless you specifically meant “political assassination and no other gun deaths”. It’s reasonable that someone would see you say that gun regulation wouldn’t have an effect on gun deaths and think that you were talking about gun deaths generally.

It would actually be bizarre for a reader to read “everything that’s happening” and think “the person that wrote this is referring to the first shooting at a school today and specifically excluding the second shooting at a school today”

> The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.

Technically true. But gun control means political violence will have to engage much closer and is less likely to be as deadly. Do we want more or less death+maiming in our political violence?

Why cannot it be both? You definitely have a gun problem, and also a mental health problem. And you even have a mentality problem by thinking that gun is fine on you just to be safe, which is quite acceptable thought over there - the reaction of Americans vs Europeans to the fact that somebody has a gun on them in a friendly group is quite stark. But you have also a stochastic terrorism problem, a grifter problem, an inequality problem, an almost zero social net problem, many monopoly problems. All of these exaggerate your murder problem.

And you clearly have a “too few people want to solve these” problem. Most of you even voted to the person who campaigned that he wants to make these worse.

This won’t be solved, and will it be made worse in America for the next decade for sure.

I think the fact that this wasn't a mass shooting makes it even worse.

I can't tell if your comment is serious. Did you know that if everyone lived in a 7x7 cell they couldn't leave there'd be no drunk driving deaths too?

That source is so unreliable that you may want to check those "claims" yourself, by hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Controver...

Likely better source that disproves the "claims" in the article above, since perp demographics are in line with the male demographics of the US:

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

> But the vast majority of those 604 shootings are from gang members with many prior arrests shooting each other.

You are just blindly asserting this. Do you have any sources?

> The U.S. averages one to two mass shootings per day, with the specific rate varying by year and definition. Organizations like the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) define a mass shooting as an incident where at least four people are shot and either killed or injured, not including the shooter. For example, the GVA reported the U.S. averaged two mass shootings per day in the first half of 2023, with a record-breaking number in 2021.

Here is an Axios article where Gemini is getting its information from:

> https://www.axios.com/2023/07/31/us-mass-shooting-2-every-da...

The data is available at: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

We are at 300 so far this year. You can click on mass shootings and get an enumerated list for this year with incidents and sources, I'm not sure if you can go back to other years also:

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

You could sample some of the incidents and see if they are being honest or not.

Honest question: why would you even post a comment like that when searching online for the answer takes like 10 seconds?

The fact that you want to go with your feels and that you have the balls to degrade someone else who was actually correct is really what says everything we need to know:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...

FWIW your "reasonable definition" of mass shooter requiring the victims to be unknown by the shooter seems totally unreasonable to me, and it's not used by any organization that actually tracks these things (the Wikipedia article gives a list of definitions, none of them conforming to yours).

When I lived in Baltimore, mass shootings were a regular occurrence. And that was just one medium sized city.

The vast majority of mass shootings don't make national news, because they happen in high poverty areas. It's not just the inner city, there are parts of rural America that are also quite violent.

It makes the news when someone who "shouldn't be killed" gets killed.

Not believing facts because you don’t want to believe them? Says everything we need to know.

It's OK to criticize the source of the info (LLMs routinely make things up). But it would be been easy for you to verify the info as well.

The definition of mass shooting has been contested for a long time. The WaPo database and the FBI database used different definitions.

IIRC, the difference lies in how many people are involved versus how many people are killed.

"Doesn’t pass the sniff test" usually means "I haven’t looked at the data." The U.S. has averaged ~2 mass shootings a day for years. It feels unreal because it is — but that's life in America.

Meanwhile, overshadowed by the Kirk shooting, an almost mass shooting also occurred:

3 Students, Including Attacker, Shot at Colorado High School, Authorities Say

  Three students, including a shooting suspect, were critically injured in a shooting at a suburban high school in Colorado on Wednesday afternoon, the authorities said.

That's just one below a common mass shooting definition threshold.

It's telling that event, leading news in any other country, will likely get buried below the Kirk shooting as "just another day in the USofA".

You've arrived at something important intuitively.

The majority of "mass shootings" are gang related. Just from gang members with many prior felony's shooting each other (and maybe innocents getting hit in the process sometimes)

This is kept from you purposefully.

New regulation: no private citizens can possess guns, and police must account for every bullet and firearm.

Granted, this decreases access for everyone. But I'd argue sane people would not demand private gun ownership in today's environment.

This seems tenuous and directionally wrong based on priors. What evidence do you have for this?

That would only be true in a world where every single human is able to regulate their angry emotions immediately. But that is so far away from human nature...