Whose record did we break? Our own?
Exactly. Congrats!
deleted by creator
We’re number 1!!! Eat it, Canada!
It’s like the other countries aren’t even trying.
Obviously
I know Our Town is creepy place, but it does not have any shooting.
Shooters? Not in Our Town!
…honestly, I’d rather get shot
We’re Number One!!!
USA! USA! USA!
🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷
Accidental liberian
Nobody Liberia’s intentionally
Oof
That’s Puerto Rico
Nobody tell Donny that PR is a US territory
That is the joke
Ha ha ha
Don’t tell them…
Some, such as the Gun Violence Archive, include events in which multiple people are shot regardless of number of deaths, and so report much higher figures.
This carries a fun implication: let’s deflate the number of mass shooting by only including the deaths and not how many people are actually shot (and perhaps saved by emergency room personnel).
It also misses the damage done by witnessing that violence and being shot at and losing loved ones to gun violence.
How do you plan on quantifying that?
You don’t, most people won’t get the mental health care service they need after that type of event and the harm just gets ingrained in those communities.
It also ignores any lingering effects the survivors might suffer, whether physically or mentally. Just because you’re alive doesn’t mean you are whole.
Or economically, given the absurd costs of medical attention in the USA.
It also encourages confusion that each mass shooting is someone trying to kill as many people as possible in a public place, when that overwhelmingly isn’t actually true.
The new definition is mostly gang violence now, but that’s not what any of us think of when we see or hear “mass shooting”.
It’s a dog whistle for justifying the gun violence as only being between black people and hispanics, as if that makes it okay.
I mean it seems like a change to inflate the numbers, but shifting it to minorities could prolly keep the right quiet.
That last part is important, because our emergency responders have gotten very good at saving lives (sadly, they’ve had to). People will point to deaths as the only relevant stat–and it’s amazing that isn’t enough for some people–but it’s a huge burden and cost for healthcare.
Mass shooting, not mass killing. I’d even want to know about instances of multiple, unrelated targets. If we get a string of shooters with terrible aim and nobody is actually hurt I don’t consider that an improvement of our epidemic.
I can already hear the wing conspiracy theories about how liberal doctors are letting mass shooting victims die in order to bolster the numbers.
Kind of like the conspiracies they’d throw around about the numbers of cases and deaths related to Covid.
Words have meanings and require definition.
Gun Violence Archive has about the most liberal definition, Mother Jones about the most conservative. (I can’t believe I used Mother Jones and conservative in the same sentence.)
Fact is, when we hear “mass shooting”, we’re thinking of the Mother Jones definition.
“If I just focus on rhetoric, all the rampant gun violence goes away! I mean, no, there is no gun violence. Regardless, everything is fine, you just have to pretend. Guns have nothing to do with gun violence, also war is peace, and I am sane in the head. I’m sure people will buy this if I just repeat it a lot.”
YEAH!
WE DID IT AMERICA!
U.S.A! U.S.A.! U.S.A!
All these senseless murders every fucking year, and not one of them directed at the republicans that have ruined everything.
It’s conservatives doing the shootings. Why does it seem that 95% of all mass shooters have a white supremacist manifesto?
Because white supremacists’ arguments are easily dismantled to their core components of idiocy, racism and ignorance. They can’t convince anyone who isn’t a moron racist and they believe that those who don’t think like they do are trying to replace them so they resort to mass murder. Because they are racist morons.
Media bias.
Seriously, when talking about this people use different definitions of “mass shooting” depending on what fits their agenda.
If we’re talking about the “nutter shoots up a public place” type shootings, then those caused about 1400 deaths between the middle of 1964 and the middle of 2021 based on numbers posted by WaPo.
If you define it as “any shooting with more than three dead” then the numbers go way up but a huge chunk of that is gang violence and family annihilators (people who murder-suicide their family). These are different kinds of problems that need to be treated differently. And neither of those is going to respond much to gun control laws.
You had me until your last sentence.
different definitions of “mass shooting”
The definition by the FBI is the only one I’ve seen. What number works for you?
The difference is less number and more kind/scenario. Look at how they get covered in the media and discussed by the public - the tendency is to talk about “mass shooting” in the sense of a nut (usually with a poorly written manifesto) shooting up a public place but then use the total of cases where more than 3 people are shot in a single incident for how often it happens. These are not describing the same things and will not respond to the same fixes.
But most of those are not the kind of shooting being discussed at all - most of those are things like gang violence, and the numbers killed by nuts going on a rampage is tiny. So tiny that if we were to tally them all up from the mid 60s to May 2021 (time frame chosen because WaPo already did the work, total is about 1400) that we’d still have more people killed in the US in a typical year bare handed.
Gang violence is not going to respond much to the kinds of gun control laws that get proposed to deal with “mass shootings”, in part because those laws tend to target scary-looking rifles above all else and most gang shootings are done with handguns. Even then, they are less likely to be concerned about breaking the law unless the punishment is so draconian that being caught with a gun is a worse risk than being shot by the other guy if things go down.
Nut-with-a-manifesto shooters use whatever guns they have easiest access to, which is why AR-15s are so common - they aren’t an especially good choice for this kind of shooting but they are the most commonly owned rifle in the US by a long shot, if you don’t already have access to one every gun store has them (comparatively cheaply) and has ammo to match the calibers they commonly come in.
deleted by creator
Finally somebody with brain.
mostly the media focus
Ah, yes, it’s all a lie, that you see through, because YOU are not gullible.
- Next.
Over 80% of mass shootings by white supremacists is not media focus. You have to skew your media consumption a lot to think violence comes from the left in the US. Beware of the media bias arguments, they are mostly used by biased media.
Well thats just a lie
More or less, it’s white supremacists related so it gives a bigger number making the article look more impressive (while still showing the propaganda we should fight against). I wanted to see if you were gonna try to check my claims but that’s not how your brain works. That’s why you end up thinking you’re on the right side of history by fighting people on the left. Go out there and challenge your beliefs.
You are so full of shit and you know it. I’ve no need to prove an obvious lie is
Or don’t challenge them, your choice, at this point I’ve pretty much given up on your bunch, it makes me too sad and strangers on the Internet don’t deserve that effect on me.
Hey it happened once. He couldn’t shoot for shit, but someone tried…
This feels fucked up to write, but incels shooting women/children/non-whites is probably better than having lefties/righties shooting each other. That’s how you actually get a civil war.
Yeah.
Lets let the perpetrators encouraging mass shootings continue to get off scott free while actively enraging their base with falsehoods.
That’ll totally prevent a civil war.
Lets let the perpetrators encouraging mass shootings continue to get off scott free while actively enraging their base with falsehoods.
Is there a /c/insanepeoplelemmy yet?
deleted by creator
Remember back in July 2022, when there was a mass shooting in Denmark and some Americans would say “see it happens even in a gun regulated country”?
There hasn’t been one since…
If you make the same search for America, letter B is probably on
purgepage 3purge 3
Quite the Freudian slip
I live in a country where it is almost impossible* to get gun. But there were some shootings even in schools. And every sane person agrees that neither any changes in laws will do anything nor all those bogus turnstiles, fences and locking fire exits. This circus of prison mentally harms children even more, fences don’t let students escape in case of shooting and locking fire exits… Dear Princess Celestia, we didn’t learn anything.
* unless you are male between age 18 and 27. In this case good uncle Voencom will give you AK even if you don’t want it.
It’s weird how the BuT OtHeR CoUnTrIeS HaVe iT tOo argument is so rapidly debunked even without showing how ‘both sides’ it is.
I don’t disagree that gun violence is a huge problem in the US, and we can all agree that we need to have serious discussion about realistic solutions.
But there are SO many more people in the US than in Denmark. It’s not even close. It has roughly the population as Colarado for the entire country.
That’s not to say there aren’t many, many more mass shooting instances in Colarado (I’m using the term mass shooting to mean a person shooting strangers on purpose in a planned attack in a place unlikely to have armed victims like a school, movie theater or gay night club) than Denmark, so I feel it’s a bit disingenuous to compare the whole US to Denmark.
Denmark also has a lot less poverty and better access to healthcare and mental health services as compared to the US.
So I know it feels good to try and make your point this way, but it’s not really the same at all. There’s more to this than guns and “Americans dumb”.
It’s easier to veiw these gun statistics less by a side by side comparison of total population and more by gun related deaths per every 10, 000 people. That allows an adjustment for population.
The US in 2023 had 10.89 gun deaths per every 10k people. Denmark had 1.08 per 10k. So roughly Denmark would have had to have roughly 10x the number of gun deaths to draw parallel with the US.
This metric does cover all homicides and suicides. For a better picture homicides only made up 7% of all gun related fatalities in Denmark in the US 43% of gun deaths were homicides. One interesting difference is that Denmark accidental gun deaths is a much bigger slice of their piechart than the US.
Strong social welfare programs and measures to check extreme wealth aggregation are also things the US would have money to manage. Technically speaking the ratio of Government wealth per adult in the US is greater than Denmark’s meaning Denmark is doing more with less.
Also poverty crime is still pretty high in Denmark. The social safety net means you don’t starve so much and have a place to come home to but it’s a very lean existance. A lot of people there are barely making ends meet. Technically speaking the poverty rates between the two countries are actually very comparable.
Thank you. I was about to look for such a per population representation as well. Bonus points to you if you could also provide the sources of your numbers. :>
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0300943274901137
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/
Sorry about that. Copy pasting anything on my cell is a nightmare on Lemmy. Here’s my main sources.
No, there’s nothing more to this than guns and Americans dumb. You have to remember, we have functioning education in most other places in the world, so the kind of imbecile propaganda you all fall victim to has no effect on us, you only come across as a moron trying to regurgitate it.
[looks around NL nervously…]
Ok, but controlling for population doesn’t actually make it better for you guys. You’re still far and away the number one in number of mass shootings. By orders of magnitude.
Note that there is a really bad outdated study that puts US in the number 11 (and it’s not relevant, because it’s really outdated by now. I suspect that because of these frequent record breaks, it would look bad even with the fuckery), because they did a lot statistical fuckery to make it so. It’s too long of an explanation to write out what they did.
However, you can just use the average for number of mass shootings per year/month/week and you propel to the top like a rocket.
So, yes it’s more than just “Americans dumb”, but everything points to the fact that US is rotten to the core, and lack of gun control is definitely part of the problem. Poverty, inequality, police violence, lack of social programs (because fuck commies, fam) and so forth… But while it’s not unique to US, it’s definitely typical US problem.
Nah, y’all dumb.
Ok let’s compare the entirety of Europe to the US (Europe has about 750 000 000 inhabitants, so double the US)
Amount of school shootings happened in the US last year: 52
Amount of school shooting happened in Europe: 31 since the year 1900
I mean it’s still an entire country. The comparisons are the same for Australia and England as well. Sure they have violence. It’s mitigating the tools to create violence. They have the easiest access in a country that breeds toxicity. Take some of those things away and maybe keeping the guns as they are a worthy discussion. But because they aren’t, it’s the most common sense way to handle the problem.
theres like 5 million Danes. their per capita count is still higher.
Have you done the maths, or are you guessing? For the rate to be equal, there must have been 220 mass shooting in the US since 1994, wich is the earliest mass shootings on this list.
(332 mil / 6mil) X 4 mass shootings registered since 1994
Notice it is SINCE 1994. I believe there are double this EVERY year in the US. The actual comparison is 15000 (mass) shootings Vs 220 (adjusted to reflect the population) making it 70! Times higher in the US, after accounting for the population differences
So you are not correct when you say it is higher in Denmark.
Also note that this is a comparison for mass shootings. Gun violence in general is even more extreme
This is a VERY rough comparison simply to prove you wrong, but there is a good article about this, comparing Denmark and the US here
Well that one guy in Denmark got eighty alone, and the states 200 this year, so yeah it was fast math, but at least I used numbers of victims, not incidents. You’re doing some excellent fast talking shitty math yourself there.
I think you’re confusing Denmark with Norway my fast talking friend…
That said, i dont think you’d want to look into gun casualties to prove your point also what is that 200 you mention? I don’t know how many have died in mass shootings in the US, but it is a lot more than the 200 you claim it to be.
I mean read the article causing this commentary
Imagine mass shootings being so common that people can’t agree on what they are…
Please, stop being stupid
You first
They already are. So how about you educate yourself on something else than your NRA approved gun manual.
Oh fuck off moron .
Denmark’s rate is 1.08. This is actually quite high by European standards, but to claim it’s higher than the US is a joke.
Math is hard 😔…
And we’ll do nothing about it as always. On to the next year. America, you’re a real winner.
Not true. We posted some “thoughts and prayers” messages to Facebook. What else did you expect, actual gun control?
Pay teachers living wages. Or double living wages.
America is bathing in money, it can afford.
That money isn’t for the people dummy. It’s for like 30 people at the top…
Tax
To celebrate the milestone, ArmaLite is offering a ten percent discount on the purchase of a new AR-15!
Nice! These discounts will really help us break the record next year!
At this point the US is just competing against itself.
It’s good that the US doesn’t get complacent and continues to challenge itself to new heights. Often times a country would be years or even decades ahead in a field only to become unmotivated, overtaken and forever doomed to obscurity and mediocrity.
[I]n Dallas a 21-year-old with a previous aggravated assault charge shot five people in a house, including a toddler.
If that toddler was armed it wouldn’t have happened
Sadly I would put more faith into a good guy toddler with a gun than the police from Uvalde.
If that person was actually convicted of the felony instead of likely plead out to a misdemeanor, it also wouldn’t have happened.
All they had was a charge, not a conviction. Are you saying you want to strip the right of self defense from innocent people?
Probably why they used the word “if”. IF they’d been convicted, the incident wouldn’t have happened. Not, they should’ve lost their gun cos they were charged. As it stands, nobody needs a gun for self defence anyway. The number of countries who manage to cope in this way far out numbers the US.
deleted by creator
Honestly, I have a whole lot of issues with how the data is presented and categorize with mass shootings all around.
Now pretty much however you look at the data, we have a major problem and probably multiple different but related major problems with gun violence in America that we are handling poorly and pretty much nowhere else in the world is experiencing the kinds of problems we have. So don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to minimize the importance of any of the categories of gun violence, I just want more clear statistics on what actually is happening so I don’t have to go sorting through a thousand different news articles, Wikipedia pages, press releases, etc. to get a full and clear picture of what’s actually happening.
Personally, I’d like to see specific stats on
The “classic” mass shooting, someone walks into a place like a school, mall, outdoor public area, concert venue, etc. and attempts to kill as many people as possible more-or-less indiscriminately.
I’d also like to see stats on planned/attempted mass shootings that get stopped before they properly get off the ground, whether police actually manage to act on a tip about a suspicious person, the shooter is unsuccessful and either doesn’t manage to shoot anyone or only shoots one person before being stopped which may keep it from being counted as a mass shooting
There’s also more target situations, domestics where someone shoots multiple family members, or situations like a gang-related drive-by, where the victims are chosen because of a specific relationship to the shooter.
There’s definitely some grey areas in-between, for example someone shooting up their own school, church, or workplace, because they would have some relationship or affiliation with the victims, but it’s somewhat more indiscriminate and they might behave more like the first category than second, or situations in which bystanders get shot, or where the shooter’s specific goal is one or several specific people but they are ok with other collateral damage, maybe they intend to kill their boss but end up shooting 7 other coworkers as well that get in their way, they didn’t set out to kill those other employees, if they happened to not be there or didn’t interfere that would have been fine by them, but they were also willing to do it if it came to that.
I’d also like to see the stats for total shots fired, how much ammo they were carrying, percent of ammo used, how many wounded, how many killed, how many times each victim was shot, types of firearms used, how those firearms were obtained, length of the incident, police response times, previous criminal/psych histories, etc.
Similarly stats on school shootings could use a bit more granularity, a columbine or sandy hook type situation is very different from a situation where a kid brings a gun to school to shoot a specific student or staff member, or from a situation where a shooting happens on school property even if it’s well outside of school hours and no students or faculty are present, etc. but often these sorts of situations will get lumped together into one school shooting category.
And that’s probably just scraping the tip of the iceberg. I could keep going with a whole lot of categories and stats I’d like to see but this comment is already getting too long.
And honestly it’s wild to me that some government agency or at least some non-profit or even a dedicated random person doesn’t seem to have really put together any decent spreadsheet with these incidents categorized and all of the stats. I’m almost certain it probably exists somewhere as the pet project of some CDC employee or something who’s unable to release it due to regulations, bureaucracy, political bullshittery, etc.
deleted by creator
Yeah they define mass shootings as 4(?) Or more deaths. Injuries doesn’t count.
I dunno what kind of math games theyre playing with this “mass killing” definition lately but Ive seen it twice now. America is near or over 2 “mass shootings” a day and has been for a while. This “mass killing” metric seems to be an obvious attempt to hide the level of gun violence in the united states. Here is a good source I frequent to get a better idea of whats happening day to day.
The article explicitly addresses that, and even links to the same website:
Different groups count mass shootings and killings in different ways. Some, such as the Gun Violence Archive, include events in which multiple people are shot regardless of number of deaths, and so report much higher figures. Its tally for the year is 630 mass shootings.
Interesting. I’m not American, but somehow I expected bigger numbers in Montana and Wyoming.
You’d need a scoped rifle and some amount of skill to pull off a mass shooting in Montana
I think the distinction is right in the wording, you can be shot and not killed. In your Wikipedia link they define a mass shooting as incidents where 2 out of 7 of their sources define it as a mass shooting, but 3 of those outlets don’t require killing to happen at all.
On top of that, in recent memory even the Vermont shooting where 3 Palestinian-Americans were shot it wouldn’t be called a mass shooting by that wiki link because they survived (albeit with severe problems) and it was one person short of the threshold.
That being said, the choice of specifying “killing” is sort of weird for outlets to make. If you shoot someone, your intent or expectation is usually for them to die.
I dunno what kind of math games theyre playing with this “mass killing” definition lately
If they didn’t broaden the definition they wouldn’t be able to include knife attacks in their article.
They aren’t attempting to hide the level of Gun Violence, they’re trying to get clicks by re-spinning the data.
Here is a good source I frequent to get a better idea of whats happening day to day.
GVA is decent but a lot of people don’t look past the number totals to try and understand the problem(s). The majority of the incidents recorded there look a lot like this one.
The salient details are depressingly familiar
- Very Late at Night / Early in the Morning
- Socioeconomically disadvantaged participants
- Alcohol / Drugs involved
- Illegally possessed Firearms
You can just walk down the list of incidents and pick them out over and over and over.
https://abc30.com/central-fresno-deadly-shooting-two-men-killed-apartment-party/14141254/
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/4-shot-house-party-over-100-minors-suspect-arrested-aurora/
congrats?
… so far.
We’re 92.8% through the year, so even if one happens it’s mighty impressive.
I fail to understand your comment. Should another shooting happen, the headline would still be correct.
They’re saying they don’t believe the situation will improve, and there will be a greater number in a future year
Not if we deploy enough thoughts and prayers
How many bullets can those withstand?
Most mass shootings in a single year so far.
World: But it’s already December!
America: hold my beer
happy holidays
Warm Kwanzaa greetings to your family and friends as well.
I’m more of a Saucy Saturnalia partaker, but thank you.
Horny Hogswatch for me, thanks
Festivus for the rest of us
“No way to prevent this”
“Says only country where this happens” :(
Those fools! If only we had 1.3 guns per person to defend ourselves!
If only this was a purely sarcastic sentiment and not unironically spouted by libertarian gun nuts.
No, no, they’ve got a point: if every citizen has enough guns to be entirely covered in them, the bullets won’t be able to get through!
