11 ms·

You're thinking of mass shooting 2019/247, not mass shooting 2019/248. (Yes, we're up to more than one a day on average now) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li

You're thinking of mass shooting 2019/247, not mass shooting 2019/248. (Yes, we're up to more than one a day on average now) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...

gmueckl 7y ago
I have no words that let me express my opinion of politicians that are willing to let this go on in a way that doesn't blatantly violate the rules of this site.
janOsch 7y ago
This list gives me shivers...is the USA a scary, uncivilized country?
- FakeComments 7y ago
  Yes. The Democrat’s policy of de-policing for crimes committed by blacks has made some areas in the USA significantly less safe. The vast majority of those shootings are incidents between or involving gang members, predominantly black. Notice how often Chicago, IL makes that list? Chicago alone is twenty incidents — which isn’t surprising, considering its reputation for gang crime. But a single city accounting for nearly 10% of mass shootings is a culture problem in that city — not a general problem with firearms or nationwide violence.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Yes, and it always has been. The murder rate per capita in the US has consistently been 5-10x higher than in Europe for the entire 20th century. Long before gun control, social safety nets, the drug war, or any other difference you might want to blame. The US is a low cohesion, high violence society.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    As someone who grew up in the US, lived in the EU, Australia and NZ for a number of years, I can say on a day to day basis, it's still pretty much nothing. The average American rarely ever has to directly confront violence. I've even spent years in major metropolitan areas and the majority of people don't walk around each day anticipating violence. My sister got mugged once, in our small home city, like 20 years ago. I've never personally been mugged or assaulted, but I did have one break in while in NZ (they took all my electronics) and I had a bicycle stolen in Australia. I haven't lived in "bad parts of town" through (although friends told me I lived in a bad part of town in two places I lived in; but I really feel they were exaggerating) and in high crime areas I'm sure it's different. But the portrayal the rest of the world sees of America is through a very limited lens. And German or Irish or Chinese person who comes to visit the US will see kids playing in parks, people in the cities walking to work or lunch, others browsing through stores or pumping petrol into their cars and it will generally looks pretty much like every other part of the mid/high income industrialized world.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- javagram 7y ago
  Violent crime in the USA is at rates about 50% of what it was 30 years ago. The USA is actually a much more civilized country than it’s been for a long time! We just hear more about the problems thanks to the ease of communication nowadays. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-abo...
- demilicious 7y ago
  The replies to this are baffling. Of course not. It’s a huge, incredibly diverse and heterogeneous country of ~300 million people.
- fortran77 7y ago
  I spend about 8 months/year in the United States (Silicon Valley) and 4 months/year in Israel. I do "feel" a bit safer in Israel than the U.S. (for example I don't like travelling in San Francisco. I fear for personal safety on the streets and on Muni, and you have to garage your car otherwise it will be broken in to). But I don't feel like I'm going to get shot in the United States. I have never even heard gunfire in the U.S. (off the shooting range!) and I've lived in Brooklyn and Manhattan, too.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  New York didn't even had a (public) police force until the 1850's, with 300k inhabitants. And there was literal brawling between competing police forces for during the first years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Police_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_P...
frittig 7y ago
I find lists like those very disingenuous. For example look at source 25 "During an attempted home invasion, shots were fired and four people were wounded". In other words, four criminals tried to rob a home but the resident of the house shot 4 of them and three of them are in the hospital and one has been released to jail. I wouldn't categories that incident along with the two recent "actual" mass shootings.
- JohnStrangeII 7y ago
  So your challenging the definition of a mass shooting they use because it somehow doesn't cohere with your personal thoughts about it. But the problem of defining a mass shooting and that various definitions are controversial is mentioned in the very first paragraph of that page. I cannot find anything disingenous about choosing an official definition and mentioning that it is problematic in the first paragraph.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    I would characterize the home invaders as the "perpetrators" in that particular story and exclude them from the injury count, consistent with the language of that definition. From the article: Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrators, are shot in one location at roughly the same time.
    - JohnStrangeII 7y ago
      Yes, they use the official definition of the term "mass shooting", as it was adopted after 2013 by the US congress, which defines it as a shooting with 3 or more victims. Moreover, they mention in the very first paragraph that the definition is controversial and problematic, and they mention all alternative official definitions (e.g. before 2013) explicitly in the following paragraphs. You probably have another definition in mind, since in your mind "mass shooting" is somehow associated with classic amok runs and terrorism. But how is that a counter-argument to using the official definitions and terms, as they are defined by US congress and used by police and the US judicial system? Why on earth would it be disingenuous for them to base their statistics on the official definitions? Sure, some people think that e.g. gang-related gun violence shouldn't count as a mass shooting even if many victims are involved, but the US congress chose otherwise and the page makes it crystal clear that the definition is problematic.
entropea 7y ago
>2019/247 >2019/248 Counting them like this is extremely depressing yet accurate.

gmueckl 7y ago

I have no words that let me express my opinion of politicians that are willing to let this go on in a way that doesn't blatantly violate the rules of this site.

janOsch 7y ago

This list gives me shivers...is the USA a scary, uncivilized country?

FakeComments 7y ago
Yes. The Democrat’s policy of de-policing for crimes committed by blacks has made some areas in the USA significantly less safe. The vast majority of those shootings are incidents between or involving gang members, predominantly black. Notice how often Chicago, IL makes that list? Chicago alone is twenty incidents — which isn’t surprising, considering its reputation for gang crime. But a single city accounting for nearly 10% of mass shootings is a culture problem in that city — not a general problem with firearms or nationwide violence.
rayiner 7y ago
Yes, and it always has been. The murder rate per capita in the US has consistently been 5-10x higher than in Europe for the entire 20th century. Long before gun control, social safety nets, the drug war, or any other difference you might want to blame. The US is a low cohesion, high violence society.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  As someone who grew up in the US, lived in the EU, Australia and NZ for a number of years, I can say on a day to day basis, it's still pretty much nothing. The average American rarely ever has to directly confront violence. I've even spent years in major metropolitan areas and the majority of people don't walk around each day anticipating violence. My sister got mugged once, in our small home city, like 20 years ago. I've never personally been mugged or assaulted, but I did have one break in while in NZ (they took all my electronics) and I had a bicycle stolen in Australia. I haven't lived in "bad parts of town" through (although friends told me I lived in a bad part of town in two places I lived in; but I really feel they were exaggerating) and in high crime areas I'm sure it's different. But the portrayal the rest of the world sees of America is through a very limited lens. And German or Irish or Chinese person who comes to visit the US will see kids playing in parks, people in the cities walking to work or lunch, others browsing through stores or pumping petrol into their cars and it will generally looks pretty much like every other part of the mid/high income industrialized world.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
javagram 7y ago
Violent crime in the USA is at rates about 50% of what it was 30 years ago. The USA is actually a much more civilized country than it’s been for a long time! We just hear more about the problems thanks to the ease of communication nowadays. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-abo...
demilicious 7y ago
The replies to this are baffling. Of course not. It’s a huge, incredibly diverse and heterogeneous country of ~300 million people.
fortran77 7y ago
I spend about 8 months/year in the United States (Silicon Valley) and 4 months/year in Israel. I do "feel" a bit safer in Israel than the U.S. (for example I don't like travelling in San Francisco. I fear for personal safety on the streets and on Muni, and you have to garage your car otherwise it will be broken in to). But I don't feel like I'm going to get shot in the United States. I have never even heard gunfire in the U.S. (off the shooting range!) and I've lived in Brooklyn and Manhattan, too.
JetSpiegel 7y ago
New York didn't even had a (public) police force until the 1850's, with 300k inhabitants. And there was literal brawling between competing police forces for during the first years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Police_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_P...

frittig 7y ago

I find lists like those very disingenuous. For example look at source 25 "During an attempted home invasion, shots were fired and four people were wounded". In other words, four criminals tried to rob a home but the resident of the house shot 4 of them and three of them are in the hospital and one has been released to jail. I wouldn't categories that incident along with the two recent "actual" mass shootings.

JohnStrangeII 7y ago
So your challenging the definition of a mass shooting they use because it somehow doesn't cohere with your personal thoughts about it. But the problem of defining a mass shooting and that various definitions are controversial is mentioned in the very first paragraph of that page. I cannot find anything disingenous about choosing an official definition and mentioning that it is problematic in the first paragraph.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I would characterize the home invaders as the "perpetrators" in that particular story and exclude them from the injury count, consistent with the language of that definition. From the article: Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrators, are shot in one location at roughly the same time.
  - JohnStrangeII 7y ago
    Yes, they use the official definition of the term "mass shooting", as it was adopted after 2013 by the US congress, which defines it as a shooting with 3 or more victims. Moreover, they mention in the very first paragraph that the definition is controversial and problematic, and they mention all alternative official definitions (e.g. before 2013) explicitly in the following paragraphs. You probably have another definition in mind, since in your mind "mass shooting" is somehow associated with classic amok runs and terrorism. But how is that a counter-argument to using the official definitions and terms, as they are defined by US congress and used by police and the US judicial system? Why on earth would it be disingenuous for them to base their statistics on the official definitions? Sure, some people think that e.g. gang-related gun violence shouldn't count as a mass shooting even if many victims are involved, but the US congress chose otherwise and the page makes it crystal clear that the definition is problematic.

entropea 7y ago

>2019/247 >2019/248 Counting them like this is extremely depressing yet accurate.