TexasCHLforum.com

Good information to have. Thanks Andy!

interesting stuff there.

Didn’t the number that defined a mass attack used to be 4?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Didn’t the number that defined a mass attack used to be 4?

Apparently someone at the SS has swallowed the blue pill and is advancing the progressive socialist agenda. If “mass attacks” can now be classified as “three or more harmed”, a completely new definition, then this report can be dismissed as leftist propaganda. In 2017, Chicago alone had over 125 incidents of more than 3 people shot. Yet not one of these incidents makes this “report.” The most interesting part of this report is it’s revealing that the SS is infected and corrupt too.

Yet another swamp department that has to be drained.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Didn’t the number that defined a mass attack used to be 4?

It used to be 4 killed, not just harmed, and domestic and gang incidents were excluded.

The solution is obvious. The US needs more guns and fewer Democrats.

I would think number of people shot would be a better indicator. If a maniac shoots 30 people and no one dies, is it not still a mass shooting situation? Opposite thing with "harmed" if that is defined loosely. A group of kids going nuts with a bucket of river stones should not be classified as a mass shooting.

The report is addressing "Mass Attacks", not specifically mass shootings. It is a thinly disguised propaganda piece that I'm sure we'll be hearing spouted from the mouths of EveryChild.

AndyC wrote:"The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder". However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least three victims, excluding the perpetrator."

So, a typical Saturday night in Chicago.

"The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder". However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least three victims, excluding the perpetrator."

Could the timing of this law have anything to do with Progressives' frustration at being unable to enact "gun control" laws under the Obama administration and their resulting calls for more Government-funded studies on "Gun Crime" in the name of public safety???

I wish this study covered a longer period of time, maybe 5 or 7 years.

Thanks for posting, Andy!

...similar themes were observed in the backgrounds of the perpetrators, including:

-Over three-quarters made concerning communications and/or elicited concern from others prior to carrying out their attacks. On average, t hose who did elicit concern caused more harm than those who did not.

-Over half had histories of criminal charges, mental health symptoms, and/or illicit substance use or abuse.

86% had threatened a person or a "target"

71% had histories of criminal charges beyond minor traffic violations

64% experienced mental health symptoms prior to their attacks

Looks like these statistics show the vast majority of the time the attacks themselves may have been preventable by taking action with regards to their threats, prior criminal behavior, or mental condition. Proper background checks would prevent mass shooters from buying firearms from FFL's half the time.

These disturbed individuals can and have used vehicles and knives instead of guns. Banning guns is no "solution" to the problem.

Given the preliminary information on the attackers, of the 23 who used firearms, at least 10 [43.5%] possessed their weapons illegally at the time of the incident. Two of those ten were minors, and the others were either felons, had a protective order against them, or had some other factor that should have prohibited them from owning a firearm.

Unconstitutionally raising the age for firearms purchase won't do much.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes states:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The 2nd Amendment states:

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.

Prohibitions of all able-bodied male citizens at least 17 years of age from purchasing or owning firearms are already unconstitutional.