There's only been 4 mass shootings in 2022

[OfTheCross]

4 innocent victims, yes, 4 people involved in the illicit activity/targeted individuals - no

mass shooting should be: shooting that takes place anywhere (public space or private property), 3/4+ "innocent"/uninvolved victims have been injured or killed, doesn't matter if shooter(s) is/are alive or dead, the victim body count is all that matters

Agreed. I don't think any of the trackers measure it that way, though.

 

[OfTheCross]

What's the difference between a black man and a nikka?

What's the punchline?

 

[drederick tatum]

US mass shootings, 1982–2024: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

They counted both Uvalde and Pulse, as well as the one from Tulsa that just happened

I'm confused then. Uvalde, Pulse, and Tulsa had easily identifiable and similar characteristics of the victims (RIP and full recoveries to all), which goes against the indiscriminate standard. I guess it doesn't matter either way, there are too many

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Agreed. I don't think any of the trackers measure it that way, though.

right, which is what makes this thread moronic. those low count stats make no sense and you're flagging them in the thread title as some proof we don't have a mass shooting problem.

I'm confused then. Uvalde, Pulse, and Tulsa had easily identifiable and similar characteristics of the victims (RIP and full recoveries to all), which goes against the indiscriminate standard. I guess it doesn't matter either way, there are too many

indiscriminate in this case are people who have done no wrong to you, it's not retaliation or a personal beef, you're attacking people who have never had an interaction with you nor are they part of an organized group that could be targeting you/your group (ie. gangs). basically shooting people you don't know, regardless if there is a racial, religious, etc motive.

 

[OfTheCross]

right, which is what makes this thread moronic. those low count stats make no sense and you're flagging them in the thread title as some proof we don't have a mass shooting problem.


indiscriminate in this case are people who have done no wrong to you, it's not retaliation or a personal beef, you're attacking people who have never had an interaction with you nor are they part of an organized group that could be targeting you/your group (ie. gangs). basically shooting people you don't know, regardless if there is a racial, religious, etc motive.

The low count stats make just as much/little sense are the high count stats.

But the accurate number is closer to 6 than it is to 800.

When someone says that there a 800 mass shootings a year it's fear mongering, imo

 

[Uitomy]

The fact that we gotta do calculus to figure it out means there’s way to damn many

this is deep as fukk. Makes me want to go listen to mathematics for the 800th time.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

The low count stats make just as much/little sense are the high count stats.

But the accurate number is closer to 6 than it is to 800.

When someone says that there a 800 mass shootings a year it's fear mongering, imo

i agree 800 is fear mongering, but based on what we agreed a mass shooting should be, you're probably looking at ~10-25% of the yellow line in OP, which is 69-174 mass shootings - that's fukking ridiculous. that translates to somewhere between every 2-5 days someone is running around this country shooting up 4+ random people. that's something to shrug off to you? especially when you can look at total gun crime in other developed nations and see numbers that parallel just our mass shooting #'s?

 

[Foxmulder]

Second shytty thread I’ve seen from OP in the last week.

 

[Uitomy]

The low count stats make just as much/little sense are the high count stats.

But the accurate number is closer to 6 than it is to 800.

When someone says that there a 800 mass shootings a year it's fear mongering, imo

this country is big as hell with a population size that will probably touch half a billion in the next few decades. 800 is very believable to me. Its close to billion guns anyway, the math is overwhelming.

 

[OfTheCross]

i agree 800 is fear mongering, but based on what we agreed a mass shooting should be, you're probably looking at ~10-25% of the yellow line in OP, which is 69-174 mass shootings - that's fukking ridiculous. that translates to somewhere between every 2-5 days someone is running around this country shooting up 4+ random people. that's something to shrug off to you? especially when you can look at total gun crime in other developed nations and see numbers that parallel just our mass shooting #'s?

Hell naw. That's outrageous. My threshold for tolerance is even lower than that. That's why I support better gun control.

I'd push back on the numbers you proposed, though.

I honestly don't feel like there are 70 mass shootings a year, as we describe them.

But then again, if there aren't deaths we don't hear about them as much so you might be right.

 

[OfTheCross]

Second shytty thread I’ve seen from OP in the last week.

shooters shoot.

 

[choc_cardigan]

What's the punchline?

The nikka is the one who would even think about answering that question

 

[drederick tatum]

Okay

right, which is what makes this thread moronic. those low count stats make no sense and you're flagging them in the thread title as some proof we don't have a mass shooting problem.


indiscriminate in this case are people who have done no wrong to you, it's not retaliation or a personal beef, you're attacking people who have never had an interaction with you nor are they part of an organized group that could be targeting you/your group (ie. gangs). basically shooting people you don't know, regardless if there is a racial, religious, etc motive.

Okay, gotcha. I thought indiscriminate meant random people, as in not targeted because of any characteristic, including sexual orientation, racist attacks, things like that. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[Agent Mulder]

I know there’s differences in types of shootings that have lots of casualties but I’m curious to know why ppl are reluctant to to include street/gang shootings in those numbers. Surely, these are mass shootings but we don’t want to count them because the victims may be part of a gang or have a certain affiliation? It’s all mass shootings and those young kids in the hood and their families are victims as well - whether or not they have criminal records shouldn’t make it so that we don’t know their faces and hear about it in the media.


If you’re for a ban on certain weapons, isn’t including these types of shootings benefits to your case? It’s all bad. It’s all violence and destructive to communities and families etc

 

[Hood Critic]

My boy, you really coming for that W.O.A.T title huh?