So something I have been hearing a lot lately revolves around it only seems like these mass shootings are committed by white men. My initial thought is that percentages of each demographic is being ignored. I decided to look into it. We know basically all mass shootings are done by men, and that men and women are about 50% of each demographic, so if the percentage of mass shooters is under the percent of the demographic then they are underrepresented in mass shootings. A mass shooting is considered a public shooting that results in at least 4 deaths.
I pulled this data from 1982 to 2022 from Statista.
I came up with this table which classifies if a group is under / over represented in mass shootings.
Mass Shootings
Percent of Shootings
Percent of Population
Under / Over Represented
White
68
53
60.1
Under
Black
21
16
12.2
Over
Latino
11
9
18.5
Under
Asian
8
6
5.6
Over
Other
5
4
NA
NA
Native
3
2
0.07
Over
Unknown / Unclear
13
10
NA
NA
Tuns out that white men are slightly underrepresented. I thought this was interesting with how much I have heard over and over that it’s always white men behind mass shootings. Thought this might be interesting.
And what about gun related murders period? Which is after all a highly greater number and should be touted as more significant. I mean it’s tragic both ways but I bet you’re more likely die in a car accident > single death by shooter > death in a massing shooting incident
I agree. That is the definition that I’ve seen though.
I agree. It was said in one article I read that if they lowered the deaths to two or three, that the stats would change a lot. Has to do with high black homicide rates.
But yeah, I’m not all that worried about things like mass shootings, terrorist attacks. Statistically it just doesn’t make sense to worry about those things. We should be worried about obesity far more. Much more likely even as a fit person currently that obesity kills me.
Exactly. I just hate then the media sensationalizes something exceedinly rare, however tragic, for an agenda. I’m an NRA member, republican, and Floridian. Despite that I agree getting a gun is far too easy, especially second hand in Florida. We need stricter regulations. But I would do it for the overall statistics not the mass shootings.
Good question. I’m not here to offer solutions, I just recognize a problem. The standard FFL transfer seems to be almost good enough IMO. The thing is you can buy a second hand gun in parking lot of your local grocery store legally with ZERO paperwork. I’ve bought and sold several. You make a connection on Armslist or FloridaGunTrader with an ad and badabing. At least with my sales I require the purchaser to have a CWP.
My solution: Allow gun sellers to be subject to civil suits for the actions of those they sell guns. However, gun sellers(all gun sellers, no matter how big or small) must be permitted to require anything they want in exchange for the gun, and will be permitted to refuse a sale for any reason whatsoever(edit: even solely because the potential buyer is a member of one of the protected classes) without challenge.
2nd edit: In exchange, I would remove all governmental regulation of firearm sales.
I don’t hate the idea. It is consistent with some laws and inconsistent with other. They have gone after drug dealers who have sold product that killed their clients. The difference there is that they are doing an illegal activity to start. Basically, everything else the seller is typically not responsible unless they did so illegally (like selling booze to minors).
Would you think it would be okay for civil suits for other products being sold that have potential to cause harm? Booze? Fast cars?
I think there is potential for a slippery slope if we apply consistent thinking to other products. IDK, we aren’t always consistent with laws, so maybe it is okay to be inconsistent?
I have no problem with that, IF sales can be refused for any reason whatsoever. Edit: I much prefer civil remedies to problems(and I use this word loosely, given the rarity of mass shootings and cars being driven into crowds) over blanket government policies.
Wow. That’s a terrible idea. Get ready for car prices to triple and have people that can’t buy a car to get to work. You’d literally cripple all industry.
So if your wife sells crafts on Etsy, and she sells an embroidered pillow to a serial killer who uses that pillow to suffocate 30 people, she should owe damages to all the victims?
So you support the law being changed to allow a jury to make a company financially liable for misuse of it’s products? You are in favor of your wife being able to get sued for her pillow and in favor of her being financially liable if a jury says so?
