5 ms·

Who cares honestly? It's the same rehashed garbage. First world problems galore. Not getting enough sex, not having enough money, not making enough friends but

Who cares honestly? It's the same rehashed garbage. First world problems galore. Not getting enough sex, not having enough money, not making enough friends but not being willing to do anything about those things but sit in their basement of choice and whine. Clarifying: The first world problem I'm talking about are the things the shooters cite as reasons for their actions, not the shootings themselves.

roflc0ptic 11y ago
Sure, it's a first world problem. I guess you can either emphasize "first world", or "problem." As a resident or denizen of the first world, I'm interested in first world problems.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Wasn't referring to the mass shootings being a first world problem, referring to the varying "crises" presented as justifications FOR mass murder, which are almost without exception pathetic.
DanBC 11y ago
Mass shootings are overwhelmingly a US problem, not rest of the first world problem. (There are a few exceptions). > but not being willing to do anything about those things but sit in their basement of choice and whine. Or go out and kill a bunch of people.
- hga 11y ago
  Not even close; here's an accounting I did covering just Western Europe just for this century as of a little over 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408 and the same with some discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201 Add e.g. Canada and "[it's] overwhelmingly a US problem" is even less true.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    If you show the US data, people could compare the numbers and draw their own conclusion.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    That's 20, for all of Europe, since 2000. The US has had over 30 mass killings this year. And that's only the events where four or more people were killed. It doesn't include events like Sept 28th 2015 Miami Florida where 15 people were shot but no-one died. Sept 28th 2015 Miami Florida - I need to include all that information because there were also shootings on that day in Indianapolis, IN; Walterboro, SC; and Philadelphia, PA, and there were shootings (often different events on the same day) on September 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th 20th, 21st, 29th, and 30th September. > Not even close Really? http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shooting... > The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.
    - hga 11y ago
      Those are different classes of "mass killings", Wikipedians aren't going to collect all the cases of where 4 or more people were killed, and my postings were not intended to discuss scale, just to refute the lie that this is a uniquely American phenomenon with 2000-~2012 examples. Which is not quite what you claimed, you said "overwhelmingly", and that's sufficiently vague I suspect it's a debatable point. Paywall stops me from the WSJ article, but I know that people who study this sort of thing that I trust have said at minimum the FBI's recent study was bunk, and that's enough for me on this topic.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        You tell me what you're counting as a mass killing, and then I can show you how that event is overwhelmingly something that happens in the US. You've pointed to less than two events per year for Europe for this century. How about six people killed? There have been 13 events in the US where six people were shot and killed since Jan 1 2013. You're wrong anyway. From your own post: > De Gelder, Kim, 20, Jan. 16/23,, 2009, Belgium, 4, 12 > Bosse, Bastian, 18, Nov. 20, 2006, Germany, 0, 22 > Radmacher, Sabine, 41, Sep. 19, 2010, Germany, 3, 18 (arson was also used) > Sacco, Angelo Secondo, 54, June 28, 2005, Italy, 3, 9 Numbers killed: 4, zero, 3, and 3. Wikipedians are going to list every event that happens in Europe, because these events are so rare. They are by definition news worthy, which provides a lot of reliable sources. But US mass shootings are so common that they hardly make the news. The fact that you dismiss an event where 15 people were shot but not killed as not being relevant, or you dismiss events where 4 people or more are killed as not being mass killings is a sign that this conversation is pointless: you're blind to the facts. > this is a uniquely American I didn't say uniquely, I said overwhelmingly. It is overwhelmingly a US problem. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/0...
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Wasn't referring to the mass shootings being a first world problem, referring to the varying "crises" presented as justifications FOR mass murder, which are almost without exception pathetic.
- agarden 11y ago
  If you want to talk about people being shot, instead of just cases where civilians walk into a crowded place just to kill as many people as possible, then I think you need to take Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, and more into account. And I doubt, once you do that, that the US will still have the most mass shootings or carnage.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    We need to define what a mass shooting is. Most people use "4 people or more shot". A mass killing is "4 people or more killed". (A serial killing has cool down time between death). By these definitions the US has more mass killings than those other countries. >The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research. Adjust it to per capita, and the US still leads the world in mass killings and mass shootings. The US is worse than the shitholes you list.
    - agarden 11y ago
      I am skeptical. The WSJ article[0] covering Lankford's claims has a graphic that shows none of those countries with even two mass shootings since 2000, including the Philippines. The Mother Jones[1] article says that only four countries broke double digits, and again, none of the countries I listed made the list. Or Mexico, which is widely reported to be rife with gang violence, including mass murders. It appears that Lankford's paper[2] has not yet been published. When it is, and if it is available for free, we can look at the details of his claims. [0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shooting... [1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/united-states-world-mass-shooters http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/united-states-wo... [2] http://adamlankford.com/research.htm http://adamlankford.com/research.htm
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 11y ago
First world problems galore. Not getting enough sex... You have a different idea of 1WP than I do. I think most humans have some interest in sex, and certainly most young men in both developed and developing nations would like to have a fair amount of it. Once upon a time, nearly all women from a fairly young age were forced by custom and circumstance into subservient relations with men. We can appreciate that those circumstances have changed in much of the "first world". We'd be foolish not to realize that those changes have led to more men losing access to regular intercourse. The anti-prostitution laws that were in a skewed sense almost "feminist" back when a woman couldn't freely leave a relationship have certainly ceased to be that by now. I don't claim that widespread legal prostitution would solve the mass-shooting problem. However, this has been identified as a factor in the unhappiness that these men feel, so it's relevant. It's interesting that this relevant factor is rarely mentioned in the numerous popular media discussions of mass shootings.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  "You have a different idea of 1WP than I do. I think most humans have some interest in sex, and certainly most young men in both developed and developing nations would like to have a fair amount of it." But only men in the first world seem to believe they're entitled to it. As outdated and somewhat horrible your other examples were when daughters were essentially sold, at least the men doing the purchasing had attained enough personal wealth to buy the woman in question, meaning they could earn a living and provide for them after the fact. I'm also totally fine with prostitution too, no issues there. That all being said, the male who feels entitled to sex is a distinct Western phenomenon. They point to tons of personal flaws they don't have, as in they aren't jerks and they don't treat women like shit, and talk about it as if that should be winning them the peace prize. The pretty girls have guys being nice to them a hundred times a day, who gives a shit if you do too?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    ...the male who feels entitled to sex is a distinct Western phenomenon. Have you ever traveled outside the West? This statement is just wrong. Historically, some societies had to break less successful men of this sense of entitlement, for reasons of arithmetic, e.g. societies with polygyny or strict women-marry-up norms. When this breaking was done, it was most often in strict Maslow-hierarchy terms. So poor men were so poor that they were literally starving, or they got Shanghaied onto a ship, etc. You see something similar with "fundamentalist" Mormons in western USA today: daughters are locked in the house, while many sons are abused, underfed, and overworked until they run away.

roflc0ptic 11y ago

Sure, it's a first world problem. I guess you can either emphasize "first world", or "problem." As a resident or denizen of the first world, I'm interested in first world problems.

FussyZeus 11y ago
Wasn't referring to the mass shootings being a first world problem, referring to the varying "crises" presented as justifications FOR mass murder, which are almost without exception pathetic.

DanBC 11y ago

Mass shootings are overwhelmingly a US problem, not rest of the first world problem. (There are a few exceptions). > but not being willing to do anything about those things but sit in their basement of choice and whine. Or go out and kill a bunch of people.

hga 11y ago
Not even close; here's an accounting I did covering just Western Europe just for this century as of a little over 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408 and the same with some discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201 Add e.g. Canada and "[it's] overwhelmingly a US problem" is even less true.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  If you show the US data, people could compare the numbers and draw their own conclusion.
- DanBC 11y ago
  That's 20, for all of Europe, since 2000. The US has had over 30 mass killings this year. And that's only the events where four or more people were killed. It doesn't include events like Sept 28th 2015 Miami Florida where 15 people were shot but no-one died. Sept 28th 2015 Miami Florida - I need to include all that information because there were also shootings on that day in Indianapolis, IN; Walterboro, SC; and Philadelphia, PA, and there were shootings (often different events on the same day) on September 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th 20th, 21st, 29th, and 30th September. > Not even close Really? http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shooting... > The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.
  - hga 11y ago
    Those are different classes of "mass killings", Wikipedians aren't going to collect all the cases of where 4 or more people were killed, and my postings were not intended to discuss scale, just to refute the lie that this is a uniquely American phenomenon with 2000-~2012 examples. Which is not quite what you claimed, you said "overwhelmingly", and that's sufficiently vague I suspect it's a debatable point. Paywall stops me from the WSJ article, but I know that people who study this sort of thing that I trust have said at minimum the FBI's recent study was bunk, and that's enough for me on this topic.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      You tell me what you're counting as a mass killing, and then I can show you how that event is overwhelmingly something that happens in the US. You've pointed to less than two events per year for Europe for this century. How about six people killed? There have been 13 events in the US where six people were shot and killed since Jan 1 2013. You're wrong anyway. From your own post: > De Gelder, Kim, 20, Jan. 16/23,, 2009, Belgium, 4, 12 > Bosse, Bastian, 18, Nov. 20, 2006, Germany, 0, 22 > Radmacher, Sabine, 41, Sep. 19, 2010, Germany, 3, 18 (arson was also used) > Sacco, Angelo Secondo, 54, June 28, 2005, Italy, 3, 9 Numbers killed: 4, zero, 3, and 3. Wikipedians are going to list every event that happens in Europe, because these events are so rare. They are by definition news worthy, which provides a lot of reliable sources. But US mass shootings are so common that they hardly make the news. The fact that you dismiss an event where 15 people were shot but not killed as not being relevant, or you dismiss events where 4 people or more are killed as not being mass killings is a sign that this conversation is pointless: you're blind to the facts. > this is a uniquely American I didn't say uniquely, I said overwhelmingly. It is overwhelmingly a US problem. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/0...
FussyZeus 11y ago
Wasn't referring to the mass shootings being a first world problem, referring to the varying "crises" presented as justifications FOR mass murder, which are almost without exception pathetic.
agarden 11y ago
If you want to talk about people being shot, instead of just cases where civilians walk into a crowded place just to kill as many people as possible, then I think you need to take Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, and more into account. And I doubt, once you do that, that the US will still have the most mass shootings or carnage.
- DanBC 11y ago
  We need to define what a mass shooting is. Most people use "4 people or more shot". A mass killing is "4 people or more killed". (A serial killing has cool down time between death). By these definitions the US has more mass killings than those other countries. >The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research. Adjust it to per capita, and the US still leads the world in mass killings and mass shootings. The US is worse than the shitholes you list.
  - agarden 11y ago
    I am skeptical. The WSJ article[0] covering Lankford's claims has a graphic that shows none of those countries with even two mass shootings since 2000, including the Philippines. The Mother Jones[1] article says that only four countries broke double digits, and again, none of the countries I listed made the list. Or Mexico, which is widely reported to be rife with gang violence, including mass murders. It appears that Lankford's paper[2] has not yet been published. When it is, and if it is available for free, we can look at the details of his claims. [0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shooting... [1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/united-states-world-mass-shooters http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/united-states-wo... [2] http://adamlankford.com/research.htm http://adamlankford.com/research.htm

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jessaustin 11y ago

First world problems galore. Not getting enough sex... You have a different idea of 1WP than I do. I think most humans have some interest in sex, and certainly most young men in both developed and developing nations would like to have a fair amount of it. Once upon a time, nearly all women from a fairly young age were forced by custom and circumstance into subservient relations with men. We can appreciate that those circumstances have changed in much of the "first world". We'd be foolish not to realize that those changes have led to more men losing access to regular intercourse. The anti-prostitution laws that were in a skewed sense almost "feminist" back when a woman couldn't freely leave a relationship have certainly ceased to be that by now. I don't claim that widespread legal prostitution would solve the mass-shooting problem. However, this has been identified as a factor in the unhappiness that these men feel, so it's relevant. It's interesting that this relevant factor is rarely mentioned in the numerous popular media discussions of mass shootings.

FussyZeus 11y ago
"You have a different idea of 1WP than I do. I think most humans have some interest in sex, and certainly most young men in both developed and developing nations would like to have a fair amount of it." But only men in the first world seem to believe they're entitled to it. As outdated and somewhat horrible your other examples were when daughters were essentially sold, at least the men doing the purchasing had attained enough personal wealth to buy the woman in question, meaning they could earn a living and provide for them after the fact. I'm also totally fine with prostitution too, no issues there. That all being said, the male who feels entitled to sex is a distinct Western phenomenon. They point to tons of personal flaws they don't have, as in they aren't jerks and they don't treat women like shit, and talk about it as if that should be winning them the peace prize. The pretty girls have guys being nice to them a hundred times a day, who gives a shit if you do too?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  ...the male who feels entitled to sex is a distinct Western phenomenon. Have you ever traveled outside the West? This statement is just wrong. Historically, some societies had to break less successful men of this sense of entitlement, for reasons of arithmetic, e.g. societies with polygyny or strict women-marry-up norms. When this breaking was done, it was most often in strict Maslow-hierarchy terms. So poor men were so poor that they were literally starving, or they got Shanghaied onto a ship, etc. You see something similar with "fundamentalist" Mormons in western USA today: daughters are locked in the house, while many sons are abused, underfed, and overworked until they run away.