So, why the irony quotes? There’s no real definition of the term, “mass shooting.” That makes it easy for media outlets or those with a political axe to grind use whatever definition they want to make an even fit their narrative.
To me, the Sacramento tragedy does not fit the definition.
Table of Contents
What’s my definition?
Minimum of four deaths by a single person or small group with no motive other than to spread fear, panic, and terror. Or revenge. Workplace killings have been known to be in response to someone being fired and I’d say they qualify.
The first one of these I ever heard of was from 1966. After knifing his mother and wife, Charles Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin and killed over a dozen people and injured 30 or so. The Wikipedia article is pretty solid on this one.
Honestly, I think even the term “mass shooting” is misleading. Whitman killed two people with a knife before he started shooting.
Once upon a time, we called this kind of thing a spree killing. I think that’s a better way to think of it; the method of killing isn’t really all that important.
Sacramento doesn’t fit that.
No, it doesn’t. It was a gun fight between rival gangs. It was closer to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. In that famous event, seven men were killed but it was part of a gang war.
Part of the terror that comes from spree killings is the sheer randomness of it. Some whack job just decides to start killing people for whatever reason he has and there’s no rhyme or reason.
Although to the innocent bystanders around I’m sure it seemed pretty damn random, so there’s that.
The usual suspects.
Joe Biden, among others who can’t let a good tragedy go to waste, immediately jumped out with more gun control crap. “Universal background checks,” for example. Governor Gavin Newsom also called for “stricter gun control,” because of course he did.
Problem: CA has universal background checks. California even has a background check for ammunition purchases, among other things. How’s that working, guys? Reducing violence in CA, is it?
At least one of the guns recovered was stolen. Another was converted to automatic fire. They were illegal. The people carrying them were prohibited. All of this is already illegal; what possible use could more laws be?
See previous: Gun control is stupid. I’ll summarize: criminals don’t follow laws so adding in new laws for them to ignore isn’t really going to help much.
Besides, it doesn’t friggin’ work. If you’re going to restrict people’s rights you need to have a damn good reason for it. And there just isn’t one for these measures.
A couple of Texas attorneys on YouTube have some interesting thoughts on this.
Do I have a solution?
Not really. I’m not even really sure that a regular citizen with a gun would have been effective in stopping or mitigating this spree killing. With multiple people shooting at each other, the chaos, and a bunch of bystanders running around doing bystander things, I don’t know if I’d be able to make a determination of who I should be shooting at. Unless I see someone shooting at me, of course. That one would be pretty clear.
Other than that I’d probably just try to find some cover.
Conclusion
To be clear, I still would want to have my gun on me. Whether I could impact the bigger picture or not, I’d sure as hell want the option to defend myself if someone did point a gun in my direction.
Clear away all the noise, and I have a right to defend myself. That rather implies the means to do so, does it not?
