Powered By Blogger

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Mass shootings by the numbers: More than 350 in 2015

A couple’s gun rampage in San Bernardino, California, on Dec. 2 that left 14 dead came less than a week after a lone shooter at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado killed three.
If it seems like a mass shooting is happening nearly every week in the United States, that's because it's true.
More than 350 mass shootings have occurred in the United States so far in 2015.
Only during one week this year — April 8 to April 15 — has there been no mass shooting, according to Shooting Tracker, an organization that, in the absence of a federal gun violence database, tracks mass shootings through reports in local media.
Defining a mass shooting as an event in which at least four people are shot, there have now been 353 this year.

Mass shootings

All told, mass shootings this year have led to 462 deaths.
Besides the rampage in San Bernardino — which is the deadliest single shooting incident in the U.S. since 2012 — three other incidents in 2015 resulted in nine or more deaths: a Roseburg, Oregon shooting on Oct. 1; a Charleston, South Carolina shooting on June 17; and a Waco, Texas shooting on May 17.
Unlike these multiple-fatality incidents, most of the 353 mass shootings reported by Shooting Tracker killed either one person or none: 147 of the incidents resulted in no deaths and 104 in one person dying. Eight mass shootings — including the one in San Bernardino — killed more than five people.
mass shootings
Most mass shootings in the U.S. occur in big cities with high rates of poverty and rampant gun- or gang-related violence.
These events typically get much less media attention than mass shootings in smaller towns or suburban areas or that appear unrelated to gangs or other criminal activity. 
Of the 17 areas that have had four or more mass shootings this year — for a total of 87 between them — all are cities with populations of more than 200,000. Six of the 17 cities are big, with more than 2 million residents. 
Chicago this year has the highest number of reported mass shootings — 14, resulting in a total of 10 deaths. These are one part of the sky-high rate of gun violence in the city, which has seen gun arrests increase by 22 percent this year and a total of 2,200 shootings amid 6,500 seizures of illegal guns.
Baltimore, which comes second in the number of reported mass shootings this year, with 10 incidents resulting in eight deaths, has a similar stark problem with gun violence. The city this year experienced one of its deadliest summers on record and is on pace to have more than 300 homicides, the most in the city since 1999.
Houston has had five mass shootings this year, but the highest number of deaths from such incidents — 13. That is second only to San Bernardino.

The ‘fiance visa’ process that brought one of the San Bernardino attackers to the U.S., explained

Tashfeen Malik, one of the two now-dead San Bernardino attackers, came to the United States in July 2014 on a K-1 visa -- also known as a "fiance visa."

Visas -- legal documents needed to enter most countries with authorization -- have been the subject of congressional debate just this week because there are a number of countries whose citizens can visit the United States without a visa. Several members of Congress and the White House want this list shortened or eliminated due to concerns that a terrorist could slip into the country on some type of short-term or visitor's visa. But the Pakistan-born Malik would not have been one of these people. Pakistan is not on the visa waiver list.

Instead, Malik entered the country, with permission, on a fiancee visa. It is one of a handful of visa types that do require a series of background checks and security screenings. But it involves a U.S. citizen as the other party, so it is typically processed more rapidly than many other types of requests to enter the United States.

For people who want to enter and remain in the United States as a legal immigrant from certain countries, including Mexico, the wait for a visa can stretch more than two decades. For refugees, the screening process is deeper and right now can take up to three years. Officially, the government agencies -- and there are several of them — involved in the fiance visa process say it takes about eight months. But three immigration lawyers contacted by The Fix across the country said current processing times typically run eight to 12 months in cases that are not particularly complicated.

Getting the government's seal of approval on your relationship — the essence of the fiance visa process — involves some rather unusual experiences. But there is a firm and absolute process. It's one most Americans know little about. So The Fix thought some facts here might be useful. What follows is information provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and Ofelia Calderón, an immigration lawyer with a private practice in Fairfax, Va., where she assists clients with a range of immigration-related legal needs. Calderón is a partner at Calderón Seguin PLC.

The basics
Getting a fiance visa requires some big commitments -- including a legal document promising to marry or leave the country within 90 days. Those who break the rules and are caught will be deported. The visa is granted on the condition that Foreign National A marry U.S. Citizen B. It is not transferable, meaning one cannot arrive in the United States on a fiance visa and simply move on to a new partner. People are deported, with some frequency, for attempting to circumvent this rule.

The process
So, you are a U.S. citizen in love with a foreign national, living in another country. The bureaucracy has a form for that. It's called the I-129F.

The I-129F includes lots and lots of basic questions and some that pry into the lives of both parties. The instructions alone run nine pages. U.S. citizen applicants and their fiances -- technically called "beneficiaries" — have to supply a lot of identifying information, including a birth certificate and or proof of U.S. citizenship, a police report revealing any arrests or convictions in any country where either party has lived for at least six months from age 16 forward, and similar information about any minor children.

And, while it's pretty difficult to provide proof of actual engagement, the couple does have to be able to demonstrate that a relationship exists. There's no Facebook official standard here. Same-sex couples are eligible. Applicants and fiances have to provide proof and that the two have been in contact -- in the same spot, physically, at the same time -- within the last two years. That's photos, plane tickets and the like. (There are cultural and hardship exemptions, but they aren't easily made.) And those who have been married before must provide that earlier spouse's death certificate, a divorce decree or an annulment. Those with common names and complicated histories might find this process longer and harder than others.

Then, U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services, one of the federal agencies involved, takes over. It reviews both domestic and international criminal databases to gather information about the two individuals and relies on other federal agencies to assist in this process. It looks for any type of contact with law enforcement authorities, including arrests that did not lead to convictions, and has to track down the outcome.

If a person has lied, this is the end of the road. Convictions for certain offenses also can disqualify a foreign fiance. Fingerprints and other biometric and health information are collected. So too is information about any marriage broker or international dating service involved in making the connection. (That's allowed but must be disclosed.) And applications are screened for signs of utter sham marriages and the like.

If the application clears this process (the goal time for this is five months or less), the U.S. State Department steps in. Among other tasks, embassy staff also looks for evidence of dishonesty or conflicting information, of for-immigration- purposes-only marriages, of those who have made use of or attempted to make use of the system before, signs of trafficking and other potential abuses.

The fiance is then called in for an in-person interview with U.S. Embassy staff in their country. This is where Uncle Sam's alarm-bell questions, inquiries about the two parties and the state of their relationship get personal. "How did you meet?" is just the beginning. Trust us. And they vary a bit from case to case and country to country. Reviews are most rigorous in parts of Asia and Eastern Europe.

And during the interview, any arrests or convictions are shared with the other party in the form of a question. As in, "Foreign National A, did you know that U.S. Citizen A, whom you plan to marry, was arrested for marijuana possession in 1986 and convicted on domestic violence charges in 2009 and 2012?" And, "Citizen A, did you know Foreign National A, whom you plan to marry, was arrested for insurance fraud in 1994?"

Now, while some information does not disqualify either party, it will be disclosed, largely for the safety and protection of both parties. Uncle Sam is, in its own way, looking out. The government is trying to prevent stuff potentially far more sinister than your average online dating disaster. Interestingly, this information is not disclosed when parties are already married and applying for a noncitizen to enter the United States. Those who found relationships abroad, you have been warned. You are in the same situation as the rest of America.

So, you and your intended spouse have made it this far. Somewhere between eight and 12 months have likely passed since the decision to marry. There's usually a bit more wait time. Tickets have to be purchased and then, with a visa in hand, Foreign-Born Person A can travel to the United States. But this isn't something that is happening in huge numbers each year. The actual count of sweethearts arriving in the United States with plans and visas that obligate them to marry or leave is not terribly large. (Click on the chart to enlarge it.)

In the first nine months of this year — the most recent data available — the federal government took in 36,627 applications, approved 34,652 and rejected 3,727 requests. The count of applications received minus those rejected does not equal the number approved because requests are sometimes received and decided in different years.

The fine print
U.S. citizens and foreign-born beneficiaries can't simply keep traveling and trying their luck. Any application that involves a person who has been to the fiance visa application well more than once in a short period of time (say, three applications in three years) is going to get the Uncle Sam equivalent of an extra strong side-eye. There will be additional questions and reviews, including a number required by international agreement to try to prevent human trafficking.

And a U.S. citizen applying for a fiance visa on behalf of a beneficiary must provide proof of income that sits 125 percent above the federal poverty level. The income requirement for U.S. citizens is considered evidence that if the fiance were to become or remain unemployed, he would not need to rely on any sort of public benefits.

Finally, fiances may apply for permission to work in the United States as soon as they arrive. They can also apply to bring unmarried, minor children to the United States with them. And then, after a period of time, the fiance can apply for a green card, technically called legal permanent residency, and eventually citizenship. This process takes years.



Hidden Harm

Alcohol is a big part of the Australian culture across every region and every social class. But for Australian mothers this could be a disaster.  
The latest research shows there is no safe limit for drinking when pregnant. All it takes is a few drinks at the wrong stage of the pregnancy for the mother's unborn baby to suffer permanent brain damage.  
101 East meets families who are now living with the tragic consequences, guilt and fear from foetal alcohol exposure.

How Your Smartphone Is About to Get Way Faster

When it comes to browsing the Internet, today’s smartphones are plenty fast. But a new technology coming down the pipe, called 5G, promises to speed things up even more. Imagine, for example, downloading an entire movie in mere seconds.

New York Times Demands Some Guns 'Outlawed'

The New York Times
In its first front page editorial since 1920, it said it was "a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency".
In a column titled "End The Gun Epidemic in America", the newspaper said: "It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically - eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.
Tashfeen Malik, left, and Syed Farook
"It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."
US-born Syed Farook, 28, and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, 27, died in a shootout with police hours after Wednesday's attack on a holiday party at a social services centre in San Bernardino.
The attack - which saw the pair storm into the building and open fire with assault weapons - is being investigated by the FBI as an "act of terrorism".
Citing other deadly mass shootings in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina. Virginia and Connecticut, the paper argued: "Let's be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism."
The New York Times editorial follows a call by The Daily News on Thursday for stricter gun controls, in which it accused Republicans in Congress of "saluting the flag of the National Rifle Association", which supports Americans' right to keep and bear arms.
The debate over gun control has been a long-running contentious issue in the US.
President Barack Obama has urged stricter gun controls, but they have been fiercely opposed by Republicans in Congress.
In his statement on the California shooting, he called for all US lawmakers to make it "a little harder" for individuals to get access to weapons when they wanted to use them to harm others.

New York Times Demands Some Guns 'Outlawed'

The New York Times
In its first front page editorial since 1920, it said it was "a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency".
In a column titled "End The Gun Epidemic in America", the newspaper said: "It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically - eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.
Tashfeen Malik, left, and Syed Farook
"It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."
US-born Syed Farook, 28, and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, 27, died in a shootout with police hours after Wednesday's attack on a holiday party at a social services centre in San Bernardino.
The attack - which saw the pair storm into the building and open fire with assault weapons - is being investigated by the FBI as an "act of terrorism".
Citing other deadly mass shootings in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina. Virginia and Connecticut, the paper argued: "Let's be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism."
The New York Times editorial follows a call by The Daily News on Thursday for stricter gun controls, in which it accused Republicans in Congress of "saluting the flag of the National Rifle Association", which supports Americans' right to keep and bear arms.
The debate over gun control has been a long-running contentious issue in the US.
President Barack Obama has urged stricter gun controls, but they have been fiercely opposed by Republicans in Congress.
In his statement on the California shooting, he called for all US lawmakers to make it "a little harder" for individuals to get access to weapons when they wanted to use them to harm others.

BBC Sticks By Tyson Fury Amid Sexism Row

Tyson Fury Press Conference
The newly crowned heavyweight champion of the world has drawn criticism for saying in an interview that fellow SPOTY nominee Jessica Ennis-Hill "slaps up well".
An online petition calling for him to be removed from the shortlist has now garnered over 50,000 signatures.
The BBC said although the corporation did not endorse his views, he would not be dropped.
A spokesman said: "The Sports Personality shortlist is compiled by a panel of industry experts and is based on an individual's sporting achievement - it is not an endorsement of an individual's personal beliefs either by the BBC or members of the panel."
And Fury, who defeated Wladimir Klitschko to win his world titles last Saturday, was himself defiant.
He tweeted: "I've got more personality than all the other competitors put together, in this years BBCSPOTY who can compete with my sporting achievement!"
Fury, 27, was asked his opinion on women in an interview with iFL TV, three days before his world title fight.
When asked about female boxers he said: "It's up to everybody what they want to do. 'I'm all for it. I'm not a sexist.
"I believe if a man can to go work all his life a woman can. Who am I to say, 'Don't do that 'cos you're a girl'?
"But I believe a woman's best place is in the kitchen and on her back, that's my personal belief. Making me a good cup of tea, that's what I believe."
Fury laughed off the comment but when asked about Olympic champion heptathlete Ennis-Hill during the interview, he said: "I think she's good, she's won quite a few medals for Britain, and she slaps up good as well, when she's got a dress on she looks quite fit."
The Change.org petition also cites an interview Fury gave to the Mail on Sunday, in which campaigner Scott Cuthbertson said he expressed "homophobic views".
The boxer's comments were even addressed in Parliament on Thursday by shadow leader of the Commons Chris Bryant.
The Labour MP said: "There are only three things, he has said, that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home. One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one is paedophilia.
"Leaving aside the bizarre rather heterodox theology, this equates homosexuality with paedophilia."
Mr Bryant said that was "profoundly offensive" and the "kind of language that leads to more young people committing suicide".