News and Media Reports

[Michael1967]

I think it's hilarious how clearly you and street stroller spent no time actually trying to understand SugarNut's (really great) response my post, and what it actually meant versus my own posts. If you actually had any idea whatsoever the point I was trying to make, you'd understand that SugarNuts is only criticizing how the GVA defines a 'Mass Shooting' compared to the feds, and how the GVA receives and displays their data. And his post had in fact no criticism whatsoever about the info I was basing my point on, which is based off of how the GVA defines a Mass Shooting. So let me spell this out. The issue about my information, and how I was corrected by SugarNuts, had absolutely nothing to do with the actual statistics to my point (if you were to base it off of GVA data). And literally everything to do with how a 'mass killing' is defined. Literally the entirety of SugarNut's post was describing how the US government, and specifically the FBI, defines a mass shooting. On top of describing how that conflicts with how the GVA defines, and what exactly the GVA is as an organization. The only thing he proved wrong was my definition of what constitutes a mass shooting in the eyes of the feds, which I didn't know conflicted so significantly with how the GVA defines it. Admittedly, all of my points were based off of how the GVA defines a mass shooting. And if you were to constitute a mass shooting as a single event where there were 4 victims of a gunshot and not including the shooter, then Everything I said is still accurate. So sorry for basing my info off of the single largest compiler of gun violence data in the US, and misinterpreting it as a federal entity. My bad, thanks for the correction SugarNuts, hilarious how STroller and Novelist have no idea of the context.

You can't make it any more obvious that why'all spent 0 seconds checking out any of SugarNut's sources that he linked or you'd understand what that info actually meant compared to my own points.

Actually, the very important point that you missed is that GVA gets it's information from a variety of sources and because they get them from a variety of sources, it is more than likely that the same information has been duplicated. A good local example is that there was a shooting in White Center. The Seattle Times wrote about of shooting in South or West Seattle. The West Seattle blog / newspaper reported it as being in West Seattle, the Burien Blog reported it as being in Burien and the White Center Blog reported it as being in White Center. All of those could possibly be accurate and we would know it's all the same report it's just different interpretations of the same location. Someone on the east coast who is compiling information wouldn't know that. Multiply that by an entire country.

[RavensBreach]

Unfortunately no amount of stats nor data will ever be enough for some people. Some just prefer to cling to their beliefs because it fits their narrative.

Can you even define what narrative you feel like I'm trying to push here? Here's how things went with SugarNut's post?

Me: I make this point this point this point on Mass Shootings.

SugarNuts: Actually you're basing that info off how the GVA defines mass shootings, not the feds. Here's how the feds define a mass shooting, and here's some info on the GVA. I don't think it's a good idea to define mass shootings the way GVA does.

[RavensBreach]

Exactly, which is why I didn't respond to the ridiculously hyperbolic statements by RavensBreach. Funny how he demanded others do their research, and they did, proved him wrong, yet couldn't provide one credible source to back up his 99 percent statement.

I think it's hilarious how clearly you and street stroller spent no time actually trying to understand SugarNut's (really great) response my post, and what it actually meant versus my own posts. If you actually had any idea whatsoever the point I was trying to make, you'd understand that SugarNuts is only criticizing how the GVA defines a 'Mass Shooting' compared to the feds, and how the GVA receives and displays their data. And his post had in fact no criticism whatsoever about the info I was basing my point on, which is based off of how the GVA defines a Mass Shooting. So let me spell this out. The issue about my information, and how I was corrected by SugarNuts, had absolutely nothing to do with the actual statistics to my point (if you were to base it off of GVA data). And literally everything to do with how a 'mass killing' is defined. Literally the entirety of SugarNut's post was describing how the US government, and specifically the FBI, defines a mass shooting. On top of describing how that conflicts with how the GVA defines, and what exactly the GVA is as an organization. The only thing he proved wrong was my definition of what constitutes a mass shooting in the eyes of the feds, which I didn't know conflicted so significantly with how the GVA defines it. Admittedly, all of my points were based off of how the GVA defines a mass shooting. And if you were to constitute a mass shooting as a single event where there were 4 victims of a gunshot and not including the shooter, then Everything I said is still accurate. So sorry for basing my info off of the single largest compiler of gun violence data in the US, and misinterpreting it as a federal entity. My bad, thanks for the correction SugarNuts, hilarious how STroller and Novelist have no idea of the context.

You can't make it any more obvious that why'all spent 0 seconds checking out any of SugarNut's sources that he linked or you'd understand what that info actually meant compared to my own points.

[TheNovelist]

Exactly, which is why I didn't respond to the ridiculously hyperbolic statements by RavensBreach. Funny how he demanded others do their research, and they did, proved him wrong, yet couldn't provide one credible source to back up his 99 percent statement.

Unfortunately no amount of stats nor data will ever be enough for some people. Some just prefer to cling to their beliefs because it fits their narrative.

[Street Troller]

Unfortunately no amount of stats nor data will ever be enough for some people. Some just prefer to cling to their beliefs because it fits their narrative.

Sources:

(1) https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/r.../mass-shooting URL is (dot) org not (dot) gov.

(2) https://www.thetrace.org/2021/06/mar...ata-interview/.

(3) https://sunlightfoundation.com/about/.

(4) https://www.costargroup.com/about-us/company.

(5) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-li...mass-shootings.

(6) https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/explainer.

(7) https://maps.everytownresearch.org/w...ethodology.pdf Page 1.

(8) https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology.

Is this enough stats and facts?

[SugarNuts]

Yes, really. Yes, undoubtedly. And correct me on what assumptions? I'm going off of raw data provided by the US government, which literally every study done on gun violence supports. Want a source? Here's a rundown on literally every mass shooting in the US in 2022.

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

And do ya really think a relative or friend of a victim of a mass shooting has any better idea of the actual commonality and statistic of what constitutes a mass shooting in the US than anybody else? That has nothing to do with it.

The fact of the matter is, if you combine every single victim of a mass shooting that was involved in an incident where a shooter was purposefully targeting completely unknown to them, take for example literally every single example you pointed out, I. E a church / school / synagogue / movie theater / etc, those consist of less than 1% of the mass shootings in the us. That is the sad truth. That is the sheer number of how many specifically targeted mass shootings go on in the US.

And that is not downplaying how horrible a random shooting is. But they just almost never occur in comparison. Free to look up those stats in the link I provided and see if it supports your opinion whatsoever. Reality, it don't.

This was a study on 171 individuals that perpetrated what they had a specific definition for what constitutes a mass shooting in that massive time period. That's it, 171 incidents, over what a 40+ year period? That is not, at all what I'm talking about. This is a very specific study about a very specific kind of mass shooting.

What I'm talking about is what the US government specifically considers a mass shooting incident. Which is literally any incident in which case three or more people are injured in a single incident by firearms. That is what I'm referring to, that is the metric tracked below in the website I posted.

You guys keep bringing up these incidents where some crazy idiot goes and murders a bunch of innocent people, which are certainly numerous and horrible, but they are a drop of water in the swimming pool of what are the total annual mass shootings in the US. When I say those shootings consist of less than 1% of the total mass shootings in the us, they absolutely do. And again that's not that they don't exist or are few in number, it's more like y'all don't just seem to realize the sheer sheer sheer number of mass shootings that actually happen out here. The study, and every metric describe above, was based off of 171 incidents over a 40-year period. Meanwhile there are already over 500 mass shootings in the US in 2022 alone. And of those 500, five or six of them were crazy morons going into churches and synagogues and shopping malls and shooting people.

I don't understand how y'all don't get my point here.

I was just going to let this whole topic die, but now I feel compelled to respond since you seem to think that that everyone else is incorrect, so here goes. I am in no way trying to bash you, just trying to correct the record.

I understand why us all don't get your point. It's because some of your information is incorrect.

Here's a list:

I'm going off of raw data provided by the US government. Want a source? https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/r.../mass-shooting

1. The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is not a Government entity.

A. If it were a US Government entity, their web address would end in (dot) gov not (dot) org (1).

B. It was created by a retired computer systems analyst when he read an article on the number of mass shootings per day mass shootings in Slate (yeah, absolutely no bias at Slate, also very little actual journalism) after Sandy Hook. He noticed that Slate had missed a lot of mass shootings (according to his definition, but I'll get to that later) and from that interaction, GVA was born. (2).

C. They are mainly funded by Michael Klein, a securities lawyer who made over $1 B after co-founding a company that does Information, Analytics and Marketing services for commercial real estate in North America and Europe mostly, Apartments.com is one of their holdings as well. None of the funding for GVA comes from the US Government (again, not a US government agency or project) (2,3,4).

What I'm talking about is what the US government specifically considers a mass shooting incident. Which is literally any incident in which case three or more people are injured in a single incident by firearms. That is what I'm referring to, that is the metric tracked below in the website I posted.

2. The US Government definition of a mass shooting is when 4 or more people are killed.

A. The DOJ (FBI) defines a mass shooting as 4 or more people killed in a single incident (5).

B. The GVA defines a mass shooting as 4 or more people injured or killed in a single incident, not including any shooter (6).

C. Even Everytown for Gun Safety defines a mass shooting as 4 or more people killed by a firearm, not including the perpetrator (7).

D. GVA uses over 7500 sources for their data, including CDC, FBI, Law Enforcement, media, Facebook, Twitter and other sources to collect data. Data collected is updated based on additional information received after the initial reporting. DOJ (FBI) data is compiled using law enforcement reports only. Could GVA be over reporting incidents due to there being small differences between media reports and law enforcement reports, I believe that's possible and that is why they state they correct information if more data is found subsequent to the initial report. GVA does not explain how they correlate statistics gathered from more than one source regarding a single incident (8).

E. GVA uses definitions and all gun violence reports in their tally, here's a direct quote "Our definition of gun violence is intended to be fully inclusionary of disparate elements of gun related incidents. In that, all types of shootings are included, whether OIS, accidental, children shooting themselves, murders, armed robberies, familicide, mass shootings, DGU, Home Invasions, drivebys and everything else. We derive our definitions from CDC, FBI, NIH, and other organizations who have established standards. " (8).

Personally, I think that every firearms death is a tragedy, including suicides, but to use an overly inflated number to call them "Mass shooting events" actually has the opposite effect and makes some dismiss all the info out of hand, because some of the methodology is flawed. GVA reports 374 mass shootings so far in 2022 while the FBI states there we 56 mass shooting event between 2009 - 2013. This is why some people will reject the stats from GVA, their definition is so out of whack with the DOJ (FBI) definition.

I feel for every family touched by gun violence, I know what it's like to lose a loved one. Unfortunately, to portray "Mass Shooting Events" as some out of control epidemic is counter productive.

Free to look up those stats in the link I provided and see if it supports your opinion whatsoever. Reality, it don't.

Sources:

(1) https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/r.../mass-shooting URL is (dot) org not (dot) gov.

(2) https://www.thetrace.org/2021/06/mar...ata-interview/.

(3) https://sunlightfoundation.com/about/.

(4) https://www.costargroup.com/about-us/company.

(5) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-li...mass-shootings.

(6) https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/explainer.

(7) https://maps.everytownresearch.org/w...ethodology.pdf Page 1.

(8) https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology.

LOL, jeez guys, how about everyone start looking at stats and facts again instead of getting your "facts" and news from memes which Tucker Carlson's team post on Facebook? Somebody's making money on that shit, and you are playing right into that.

Is this enough stats and facts?

[Street Troller]

You made the claim that 99% of all mass-shootings occur in gang-infested areas. I found data, and I continue to see the same in other data sources, that says most mass-shootings occurred in the workplace.

<shrugs .

You guys keep bringing up these incidents where some crazy idiot goes and murders a bunch of innocent people, which are certainly numerous and horrible, but they are a drop of water in the swimming pool of what are the total annual mass shootings in the US.

[RavensBreach]

The National Institute of Justice did a study on public mass-shootings from 1966-2019. They found that.

- 52% of shooters were white followed by 21% black.

- 97% of shooters were male.

- 64% had a criminal background with 62% having a history of violence.

- 28% had served in the military.

- 31% of shootings, the largest amount, occurred in the workplace. Apparently the study recognized a steady decrease in employment-related violence since the 1970's. They've found that modern mass-shooters are more likely to be radicalized online.

- Handguns were used in 77% of shootings with 25% being rifles.

- 77% of shooters purchased their guns legally while 13% purchased them illegally or by other means (theft).

- 80% of shooters involved in school shootings used firearms taken from family members.

- 48% of mass-shooters leaked their plans to others.

[/QUOTE]This was a study on 171 individuals that perpetrated what they had a specific definition for what constitutes a mass shooting in that massive time period. That's it, 171 incidents, over what a 40+ year period? That is not, at all what I'm talking about. This is a very specific study about a very specific kind of mass shooting.

What I'm talking about is what the US government specifically considers a mass shooting incident. Which is literally any incident in which case three or more people are injured in a single incident by firearms. That is what I'm referring to, that is the metric tracked below in the website I posted.

You guys keep bringing up these incidents where some crazy idiot goes and murders a bunch of innocent people, which are certainly numerous and horrible, but they are a drop of water in the swimming pool of what are the total annual mass shootings in the US. When I say those shootings consist of less than 1% of the total mass shootings in the us, they absolutely do. And again that's not that they don't exist or are few in number, it's more like y'all don't just seem to realize the sheer sheer sheer number of mass shootings that actually happen out here. The study, and every metric describe above, was based off of 171 incidents over a 40-year period. Meanwhile there are already over 500 mass shootings in the US in 2022 alone. And of those 500, five or six of them were crazy morons going into churches and synagogues and shopping malls and shooting people.

I don't understand how y'all don't get my point here.

[Street Troller]

The National Institute of Justice did a study on public mass-shootings from 1966-2019. They found that.

- 52% of shooters were white followed by 21% black.

- 97% of shooters were male.

- 64% had a criminal background with 62% having a history of violence.

- 28% had served in the military.

- 31% of shootings, the largest amount, occurred in the workplace. Apparently the study recognized a steady decrease in employment-related violence since the 1970's. They've found that modern mass-shooters are more likely to be radicalized online.

- Handguns were used in 77% of shootings with 25% being rifles.

- 77% of shooters purchased their guns legally while 13% purchased them illegally or by other means (theft).

- 80% of shooters involved in school shootings used firearms taken from family members.

- 48% of mass-shooters leaked their plans to others.

- 31% of all shooters had experienced severe childhood trauma and over 80% were in crisis at time of shooting.

- more than half of all mass-shootings occurred after the year 2000.

The more you know, folks. It's not enough to just spout your beliefs, you have to go look shit up. I know we live in an age where we can just say, "I don't believe that", but facts don't care about your god beliefs.

Jesus, people.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/...mass-shootings

[RavensBreach]99%+ of mass shootings are in poverty-stricken gang areas, and our crimes of opportunity and gang violence, with innocents being caught by stray bullets[ / quote].

[RavensBreach]

Really? Tell that to every student survivor or family of a student victim, church or synagogue survivors and victim's families, or similarly movie theatre shootings, outdoor concert venues, nightclubs, etc.

I'm sure they'd like to correct you on those assumptions.

Yes, really. Yes, undoubtedly. And correct me on what assumptions? I'm going off of raw data provided by the US government, which literally every study done on gun violence supports. Want a source? Here's a rundown on literally every mass shooting in the US in 2022.

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

And do ya really think a relative or friend of a victim of a mass shooting has any better idea of the actual commonality and statistic of what constitutes a mass shooting in the US than anybody else? That has nothing to do with it.

The fact of the matter is, if you combine every single victim of a mass shooting that was involved in an incident where a shooter was purposefully targeting completely unknown to them, take for example literally every single example you pointed out, I. E a church / school / synagogue / movie theater / etc, those consist of less than 1% of the mass shootings in the us. That is the sad truth. That is the sheer number of how many specifically targeted mass shootings go on in the US.

And that is not downplaying how horrible a random shooting is. But they just almost never occur in comparison. Free to look up those stats in the link I provided and see if it supports your opinion whatsoever. Reality, it don't.

[TheNovelist]

99%+ of mass shootings are in poverty-stricken gang areas, and our crimes of opportunity and gang violence, with innocents being caught by stray bullets.

Really? Tell that to every student survivor or family of a student victim, church or synagogue survivors and victim's families, or similarly movie theatre shootings, outdoor concert venues, nightclubs, etc.

I'm sure they'd like to correct you on those assumptions.

[FistChalk]

I'll start with some info that's directly relevant to website account security & add some extra tips. I won't get in depth but feel free to ask me any direct questions.

Use a throwaway / alt email address. Many people use Proton Mail, but what many people don't know is only emails sent between Proton Mail users supports end to end encryption.

https://proton.me/support/password-protected-emails

Everyone needs a password manager. Bare minimum use the one in your browser but I prefer the cloud based ones for personal stuff. I use Keepass for more private stuff. Every account needs a unique password and password managers will generate it for you. They tend to look like this - "wx6 mPUs9 C0 acWRYFAuJj".

Usernames are almost passwords themselves. No need to create an online presence by directly connecting across multiple services with the same username.

Connect with a VPN. Most sites are HTTPS (Unfortunately the Sex Guide sites aren't). What that means is although those with access (ISPs, Net Admin, hackers, etc.) can see your traffic but the data itself is encrypted. A VPN will mask your data regardless & hide your true IP address.

If a service has two factor authentication, use it.

Any online device you use should have some form of encryption. If you have a dedicated device it should have Full Disk Encryption. PC, Mac, Android & iPhone have it. Look it up. You can also get a removable drive, encrypt it, and throw a portable browser install on it.

Your images have metadata embedded in it that has info like focal length, date taken, & GPS location. Look up how to remove EXIF data. Or be lazy and at least screenshot it then upload the screenshot.

[SMediumDick]

Have you read the news the last couple of years? Solar Winds ring a bell? You have no idea what you're talking about so please save your advice for topics with which you're familiar..

So enlighten us since you seem to be so knowledgeable.

Why does a user asking for search / filter features and a secure platform get such a reply from you?

Just because you know some html or doesn't mean you know what you are talking about either.

[CrackedWheat]

Hey, TNA, if you're reading this, please get a modern, accesssible and secure platform. Make it easier for us to search and filter. That'll do.

Have you read the news the last couple of years? Solar Winds ring a bell? You have no idea what you're talking about so please save your advice for topics with which you're familiar.

CW.

[SeattleGonzo]

If I were tna, I would want to be friends with people in the tech community that can handle such things.