[FiveSquared]

Then spying, tracking, censorship of "offensive" or "unpatriotic" words depending on your political side for little gain of the little people. Of course, the state won't do anything to actually reduce mass shooting, they profit of fear and hate. History doesn't repeat, it is remixed.

[Zecar]

Mass shootings are vanishingly rare. Your odds of being in one are microscopic.

[Spooky23]

Risk assessment fundamentally about probability and impact.

We took measures to get serious about drunk driving because it increased the probability of car accidents, especially at night,and was killing people.

On the flip side, we mandate tamper evident seals in medicine because the rare event of tampering hurt a small number of people, but undermined the citizens faith in the institutions they depend on.

The mass shooting issue is like the pill bottle problem. It’s a serious matter with an obvious solution. At the end of the day, it’s a problem unleashed by marketing — as hunting and shooting sport participation evaporated, gunmakers were left with a problem. Now we have batshit crazy people with political power, which is a genie that will be difficult to put back in the bottle.

[FiveSquared]

However, it’s a shame that it happenes with frighting regularly in 2019! I probably won’t involve me but it’s a outrage.

[munk-a]

Lots of things are vanishingly rare, the odds of being in a mass shooting are a lot less vanishingly rare then I am comfortable with. If the odds were up near where tornado deaths are I'd prefer it. The numbers I saw gave a 1/11125 chance per year of being killed in a mass shooting in the US.

[DanBC]

Only if you use the perversely tight definition of 4 or more people killed (not including the shooter), not in a robbery, not as part of gang violence, not as part of domestic violence, and not including sponsored terrorist events, on the same day in close geographical proximity.

As soon as you drop some of those requirements the numbers increase dramatically.