5 ms·

We mostly have criminals shooting other criminals. Schools shootings are insanely rare. More males dies of breast cancer than all people who die in mass shoot

We mostly have criminals shooting other criminals. Schools shootings are insanely rare. More males dies of breast cancer than all people who die in mass shootings. Mass shootings just get lots of press. But they’re super rare.

eddyschai 4y ago
Probably not true, but only just. 570 men die of breast cancer each year in the US (latest stats from the Cancer Statistics Center) while 330 people have died in mass shootings in the US this year so far. You can see the stats, taken from the Gun Violence Archive, here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xB5VWgcpvw5UrWYq-6sokWM2Qoj5kfbRKF7cd5pUji8/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xB5VWgcpvw5UrWYq-6so...
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  Mass shootings are more traumatic though as they're extremely brutal, graphic, and sudden. I'd weight the actual impact of someone I know being shot in a mass shooting far worse than someone I know dying of breast cancer. The latter won't have them leave in the morning and not come back at 5pm randomly. It also won't create a general climate of fear, distrust between people, and terrible politics. Both are tragic, but tragedies of different kind, which is why direct comparisons always seem technically correct but missing so badly the way people actually think about and experience tragedy.
  - BrianOnHN 4y ago
    > also won't create a general climate of fear, distrust between people, and terrible politics Also why they're allowed to continue. "It's good for business."
  - eddyschai 4y ago
    Not debating any of that; originally thought the comment above mine was wrong, looked at the stats, and found they were far closer than I assumed.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    I personally know people who were injured in a mass shooting. It sends shockwaves throughout the surrounding community in a way many crimes do not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pyuser583 4y ago
  That document says 330 people died from mass shootings. I was comparing males who died from breast cancer to males who died from mass shootings. I’m also a bit confused … your stats show more males dying from breast cancer than people dying from mass shootings. Doesn’t that support my position? Did one of us misspeak?
mattnewton 4y ago
If our male breast cancer rate was as out-of-wack with the rate of the same cancer in other developed countries we absolutely would have people talking about it, like we have with the “obesity” epidemic or other issues that seem correlated with being an american.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Why do you think that level of development is a relevant criteria? The homicide rate in Bangladesh is 2.37 per 100,000. The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is 18.5 per 100,000. Both have very strict gun control and the populations are virtually disarmed. Indeed, the US has always had vastly higher homicide rates than Europe, long before modern gun control. Compared to other countries in the Americas, however, the US homicide rate doesn’t seem that high.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    So it’s all fine as long as you consistently compare things to places that are going badly?
    - justinclift 4y ago
      "America: We're not the worst country in the world... yet." ;)
    - snovv_crash 4y ago
      I believe the point GP was making is that policies driven by reductionist arguments aren't going to actually fix the problems they purport to.
    - Telemakhos 4y ago
      I think you've missed gp's point of comparison, as well as misunderstood the logical notions of necessity and sufficiency. If the murder rate in place X is lower than in places Y and Z, both of which have (a) disarmed their people and (b) have whatever undefined things "going badly," then it is logical to assume that neither (a) nor (b) is logically necessary or sufficient for a lower murder rate. The comparison suggests that disarmament and having things "go badly," whatever that means, are not causally related to a lower murder rate.
shreyshnaccount 4y ago
this makes no sense, because the reason US school shootings get press is because they are a. a very American phenomenon and b. easily stopped hy policy change. breast cancer can't be reduced by simply making cancer cells illegal, but shorting can stop by regulating guns. this is a very bad take on so many levels.

eddyschai 4y ago

Probably not true, but only just. 570 men die of breast cancer each year in the US (latest stats from the Cancer Statistics Center) while 330 people have died in mass shootings in the US this year so far. You can see the stats, taken from the Gun Violence Archive, here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xB5VWgcpvw5UrWYq-6sokWM2Qoj5kfbRKF7cd5pUji8/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xB5VWgcpvw5UrWYq-6so...

bigDinosaur 4y ago
Mass shootings are more traumatic though as they're extremely brutal, graphic, and sudden. I'd weight the actual impact of someone I know being shot in a mass shooting far worse than someone I know dying of breast cancer. The latter won't have them leave in the morning and not come back at 5pm randomly. It also won't create a general climate of fear, distrust between people, and terrible politics. Both are tragic, but tragedies of different kind, which is why direct comparisons always seem technically correct but missing so badly the way people actually think about and experience tragedy.
- BrianOnHN 4y ago
  > also won't create a general climate of fear, distrust between people, and terrible politics Also why they're allowed to continue. "It's good for business."
- eddyschai 4y ago
  Not debating any of that; originally thought the comment above mine was wrong, looked at the stats, and found they were far closer than I assumed.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  I personally know people who were injured in a mass shooting. It sends shockwaves throughout the surrounding community in a way many crimes do not.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pyuser583 4y ago
That document says 330 people died from mass shootings. I was comparing males who died from breast cancer to males who died from mass shootings. I’m also a bit confused … your stats show more males dying from breast cancer than people dying from mass shootings. Doesn’t that support my position? Did one of us misspeak?

mattnewton 4y ago

If our male breast cancer rate was as out-of-wack with the rate of the same cancer in other developed countries we absolutely would have people talking about it, like we have with the “obesity” epidemic or other issues that seem correlated with being an american.

rayiner 4y ago
Why do you think that level of development is a relevant criteria? The homicide rate in Bangladesh is 2.37 per 100,000. The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is 18.5 per 100,000. Both have very strict gun control and the populations are virtually disarmed. Indeed, the US has always had vastly higher homicide rates than Europe, long before modern gun control. Compared to other countries in the Americas, however, the US homicide rate doesn’t seem that high.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  So it’s all fine as long as you consistently compare things to places that are going badly?
  - justinclift 4y ago
    "America: We're not the worst country in the world... yet." ;)
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    I believe the point GP was making is that policies driven by reductionist arguments aren't going to actually fix the problems they purport to.
  - Telemakhos 4y ago
    I think you've missed gp's point of comparison, as well as misunderstood the logical notions of necessity and sufficiency. If the murder rate in place X is lower than in places Y and Z, both of which have (a) disarmed their people and (b) have whatever undefined things "going badly," then it is logical to assume that neither (a) nor (b) is logically necessary or sufficient for a lower murder rate. The comparison suggests that disarmament and having things "go badly," whatever that means, are not causally related to a lower murder rate.

shreyshnaccount 4y ago

this makes no sense, because the reason US school shootings get press is because they are a. a very American phenomenon and b. easily stopped hy policy change. breast cancer can't be reduced by simply making cancer cells illegal, but shorting can stop by regulating guns. this is a very bad take on so many levels.