Stopping Active Shooters (mass murders that is)

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
10,575
Reaction score
4,508
Location
New York
Here in Seattle the criminals are battling every night shooting and killing each other and innocent bystanders, this was not the case 20 years ago.

I failed to state that as my experience. What is note worthy is the brazen acts of violence against both the police and civilians. Quite disturbing.

Mr. Serna
I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.
Violent crime and assault are pretty much where they were 20 years ago.
 

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.
Violent crime and assault are pretty much where they were 20 years ago.
Violent crime in the U.S. over all has been trending downward for somewhere around the last 3 decades; murder, assault, everything. "For some reason" it took a serious uptick in 2021. :rolleyes:

However, it looks like it's going to be going down again. Probably not immediately below 2020 levels but it looks like it's trending back down from that blip. We'll see what this summer holds, but I'm betting we don't see the same mass violence this summer that we did last.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
1,583
Lies, dam lies and statistics.
People need to be really careful reading numbers and statistics and then drawing conclusions. Homicide rates are not the same as violent crime rates. Homicide rates have gone down over the years, that is true but this is predominantly due to improvements in medicine and hospital care. The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.
Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
10,575
Reaction score
4,508
Location
New York
The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.
Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.
Untrue, based on the link from above. Violent crime in the US was at 523 crimes per 100,000 people in the year 1999, with a fairly steady decrease, and reached 381 crimes per 100k people in 2018 (last year it takes). For just aggravated assault, those numbers went from 334 in 1999 with again a fairly steady decrease until it reached 247 crimes per 100k in 2018.

Admittedly, it does not mention specifically aggravated assault with a firearm, so I had to look elsewhere for that. I found two things, one chart going over the rate of nonfatal firearm victimization from 1993 to 2011, where it decreased from 7.3 per 1000 people in 93, to 1.8 per 1000 people in 2011.
The second one was a flat number of in-patient hospital visits for firearms from 2000 to 2015, just to get a bit closer to us. The number there stayed pretty much the same, hovering between 30,000 and 35,000 people each year, which indicates that the percentage there also went down a tiny bit since the population had a 14% increase during that time.

Sadly, I wasn't able to find anything more recent regarding nonfatal, violent gun crimes. Everything else was either talking about fatal crimes, comparing crime rates between the US and other countries, nonviolent gun crimes, or school shootings. Nothing else about the specific type of gun crime you referenced, by year within the US. If you had a source for where you found that those numbers have increased I'd be interested, as what I found does not align with that (unless they've really increased the last 7 years).
 

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
Lies, dam lies and statistics.
That only matters if you actually look at the statistics instead of assuming them.

People need to be really careful reading numbers and statistics and then drawing conclusions.
People need to be really careful to actually find numbers and statistics first. You didn't.

Homicide rates are not the same as violent crime rates. Homicide rates have gone down over the years, that is true but this is predominantly due to improvements in medicine and hospital care. The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.
I didn't write "homicides." I wrote "violent crime." And violent crime, over all, as a class, has been declining for 30 years. Medical aid has nothing to do with it.

reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990-883066365.png



Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.
Sorry, but your conclusion is not based on actual data.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

mograph

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
1,567
Reaction score
691
Here's what Pew has to say:
  1. slightly over half of US gun deaths (54%) are suicides
  2. a record number of Americans (an absolute number) died of gun-related injuries (murders + suicides) in 2020
  3. the rate (absolute/population) has fallen (since the absolute number has risen, that means that the population has risen faster)
  4. 79% of murder involve a gun, 53% of suicides involved a gun
  5. the US gun fatality rate (number/pop) is high among developed countries (e.g. five times that of Canada), but not as high as in some Latin American countries
  6. the number of "active shooting" (definition below) incidents in the the US has been increasing

 

MR. SERNA

Yellow Belt
Joined
May 14, 2022
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
I guess it depends on where in Seattle you l

I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.
Violent crime and assault are pretty much where they were 20 years ago.
And it worse now. The current data reflects record numbers.

So sad, Seattle is such a beautiful place.

Mr. Serna
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
1,583
People need to be really careful to actually find numbers and statistics first. You didn't.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
My point was... people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.
 

MR. SERNA

Yellow Belt
Joined
May 14, 2022
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
My point was... people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.
I agree.

Anytime you are dealing with data one needs to break it down and extrapolate the raw data into data you can use depending on your argument. (Argument means debate)
The data become real when you line up gang warfare, accidental, legal self defense, terrorist, random and so on. You need to do this in order for your argument to have merit.

Otherwise you do not have a viable argument, and you are then parroting the news. Which is no longer news it is broadcasting because they do not clarify or retract. The news follows political diatribe and present it as facts and data.

Mr. Serna
 

hoshin1600

Senior Master
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
1,583
Moving back to the op and the article. While I do not agree mass shooting perpetrators are easy to handle, I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up. We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors. This would also take all levels of government and the public at large too. In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.
 

O'Malley

Brown Belt
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
423
Reaction score
286
Stumbled upon this video, I'll post it here since the thread on kids getting shot is closed. Can't comment on whether everything's correct as I don't practice US law.

I remember reading here that the solution to school shootings is to tell police (including the SRO) to engage the armed murderer. However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene:

 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
22,200
Reaction score
6,957
Stumbled upon this video, I'll post it here since the thread on kids getting shot is closed. Can't comment on whether everything's correct as I don't practice US law.

I remember reading here that the solution to school shootings is to tell police (including the SRO) to engage the armed murderer. However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene:


Do you guys have this whole right to a safe work environment thing?
 

O'Malley

Brown Belt
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
423
Reaction score
286
Do you guys have this whole right to a safe work environment thing?
Don't know. I'm in Europe and we have very different laws and traditions compared to the US. For example, it's taken for granted that the state can be sued for failing to protect individuals threatened by third parties.

But from what I understand, it can't be done in the US, as confirmed by a 2020 ruling on one of the recent shootings.
 

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
My point was... people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.
Then perhaps I misunderstood what you were communicating.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up. We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors.
Well, yes. The paradigm shifted with Columbine from a stand-off with hostages to something "new." That was 23 years ago now and it seems that the message still hasn't reached some places. :(


In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.
This sentiment has been growing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene
SCOTUS has ruled, quite definitively, multiple times now, that the police have no legal requirement to protect any one in particular. Their obligation is to the public in general.

That said, the public seems to have zero tolerance for cops waiting around in this situation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
12,377
Reaction score
9,447
Location
Maui
Moving back to the op and the article. While I do not agree mass shooting perpetrators are easy to handle, I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up. We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors. This would also take all levels of government and the public at large too. In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.
All of the police officers in Uvalde who waited while children were slaughtered are members of a unique group. Devout cowards. May karma get them all.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
22,200
Reaction score
6,957
SCOTUS has ruled, quite definitively, multiple times now, that the police have no legal requirement to protect any one in particular. Their obligation is to the public in general.

That said, the public seems to have zero tolerance for cops waiting around in this situation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Do any first responders have this obligation?
 

Latest Discussions

Top