4 ms·

You've arrived at something important intuitively. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang related. Just from gang members with many prior felony's shooting

You've arrived at something important intuitively. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang related. Just from gang members with many prior felony's shooting each other (and maybe innocents getting hit in the process sometimes) This is kept from you purposefully.

thephyber 1y ago
> This is kept from you purposefully. No it’s not. This is constantly reiterated in many news outlets. In fact, Charlie Kirk was probably making that exact point at the time he was shot (my opinion based on his last sentence).
- insurancesucks 1y ago
  Apparently we need to say it a little louder. We have multiple threads in this comment section of people trying to figure out how the US can have > 500 "mass shootings" a year and do nothing. I won't be satisfied until we change the definition. Including gang violence from people with multiple felonies is not useful to the conversation.
  - thephyber 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - insurancesucks 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - thephyber 1y ago
        You are trying to change the definition of a term to something that literally nobody agrees with nor keeps records of. You are shoehorning data to fit your politics.
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    > I won't be satisfied until we change the definition. Including gang violence from people with multiple felonies is not useful to the conversation. Why should we not count gangs and felons killing 4+ people at once as "mass killing"?! Because their victims may know them somehow? It's still a serious incident which would be much less likely if guns were illegal. And all we'd lose is some sport shooting and ego points.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Because these are fundamentally different crimes with different motives, people from mostly different walks of life doing them and different preventative steps. The stuff you do to "solve" drive-bys and targeted drug industry violence won't solve school shootings and vise versa. To lump them together serves no non-evil purpose. The people doing so are exactly as deserving of marginalization, and ideally legitimate state violence following due process (but that's just a pipe dream of mine), as the people who use a slight of hand to include prescription abuse in stats about cross-border drug smuggling or the people who try and act like literally every instance of domestic violence is the fault of alcohol or whatever. Nobody with even a shred of decency would stand behind those latter two examples. It speaks volumes about HN that the mass-shooting slight of hand is fine though. And this isn't just a mass shooting crime issue. This is a "people feel emboldened to lie and be shitty because there is no consequence" issue. Bad people perform comparable dishonest slights of hand on all sorts of issues.
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        > The stuff you do to "solve" drive-bys and targeted drug industry violence won't solve school shootings and vise versa. Are you sure about that? There are probably some differences in prevention and response, but also plenty of similarities too. Like better mental healthcare, outlawing private gun ownership, and teaching non-violent conflict resolution. > To lump them together serves no non-evil purpose. The people doing so are exactly as deserving of marginalization, and ideally legitimate state violence following due process (but that's just a pipe dream of mine)... So you're advocating for violence in response to speech?
ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
>The majority of "mass shootings" are gang related. Just from gang members with many prior felony's shooting each other (and maybe innocents getting hit in the process sometimes) >This is kept from you purposefully. Right. And since "gang members" are, of course largely ones with a higher melanin content than you and are either foreign born, the children of immigrants or the descendants of folks kidnapped and enslaved here, they're all obviously sub-human and therefore their deaths don't count as much as folks like you, right? Don't be shy. It's okay to speak up about it these days. That's a good bigot. Nice bigot.

thephyber 1y ago

> This is kept from you purposefully. No it’s not. This is constantly reiterated in many news outlets. In fact, Charlie Kirk was probably making that exact point at the time he was shot (my opinion based on his last sentence).

insurancesucks 1y ago
Apparently we need to say it a little louder. We have multiple threads in this comment section of people trying to figure out how the US can have > 500 "mass shootings" a year and do nothing. I won't be satisfied until we change the definition. Including gang violence from people with multiple felonies is not useful to the conversation.
- thephyber 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - insurancesucks 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - thephyber 1y ago
      You are trying to change the definition of a term to something that literally nobody agrees with nor keeps records of. You are shoehorning data to fit your politics.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  > I won't be satisfied until we change the definition. Including gang violence from people with multiple felonies is not useful to the conversation. Why should we not count gangs and felons killing 4+ people at once as "mass killing"?! Because their victims may know them somehow? It's still a serious incident which would be much less likely if guns were illegal. And all we'd lose is some sport shooting and ego points.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Because these are fundamentally different crimes with different motives, people from mostly different walks of life doing them and different preventative steps. The stuff you do to "solve" drive-bys and targeted drug industry violence won't solve school shootings and vise versa. To lump them together serves no non-evil purpose. The people doing so are exactly as deserving of marginalization, and ideally legitimate state violence following due process (but that's just a pipe dream of mine), as the people who use a slight of hand to include prescription abuse in stats about cross-border drug smuggling or the people who try and act like literally every instance of domestic violence is the fault of alcohol or whatever. Nobody with even a shred of decency would stand behind those latter two examples. It speaks volumes about HN that the mass-shooting slight of hand is fine though. And this isn't just a mass shooting crime issue. This is a "people feel emboldened to lie and be shitty because there is no consequence" issue. Bad people perform comparable dishonest slights of hand on all sorts of issues.
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      > The stuff you do to "solve" drive-bys and targeted drug industry violence won't solve school shootings and vise versa. Are you sure about that? There are probably some differences in prevention and response, but also plenty of similarities too. Like better mental healthcare, outlawing private gun ownership, and teaching non-violent conflict resolution. > To lump them together serves no non-evil purpose. The people doing so are exactly as deserving of marginalization, and ideally legitimate state violence following due process (but that's just a pipe dream of mine)... So you're advocating for violence in response to speech?

ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago

>The majority of "mass shootings" are gang related. Just from gang members with many prior felony's shooting each other (and maybe innocents getting hit in the process sometimes) >This is kept from you purposefully. Right. And since "gang members" are, of course largely ones with a higher melanin content than you and are either foreign born, the children of immigrants or the descendants of folks kidnapped and enslaved here, they're all obviously sub-human and therefore their deaths don't count as much as folks like you, right? Don't be shy. It's okay to speak up about it these days. That's a good bigot. Nice bigot.