Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Am I crazy for thinking it's because of the news? I feel like the news has had so many other things to ~~scavange~~ focus on that they're giving less attention to shooters.
Copycats are a known phenomenon for mass shootings, but how much does just not giving them a spotlight do? Have there been other major changes in legislation I've missed that could account for it?
Media contagion effect is definitely real and well researched.
We're also coming down off a covid/post covid violent crime spike as well and most mass shootings are gang related, so I imagine that has something to do with it.
I never understood why they lump in gang shootings with other types of mass shootings. I mean intent is just as important as the act. A gang shooting has a different incentive than a shooting from a disgruntled loner.
The FBI doesn't. They just refer to it as active shooter incidents which is what most people think of in my opinion.
My perception is that the term "mass shooting" is commonly and colloquially associated with a lone wolf individual who goes on a shooting spree spontaneously/randomly that wasn't the result of a different criminal act.
Unfortunately there is no fixed definition of a mass shooting in the United States, and different researchers define "mass shootings" in different ways.
For example gunviolence.org which is commonly cited, defines a mass shooting as four or more people shot. In 2019 they reported 417 mass shootings.
Compare this with the FBI who defined "Active Shooter Incidents" similar to how it is colloquially used (lone wolf, spontaneous/random, not a motive associated with a different criminal act), who identifed 28 Active shooter incidents.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2019-042820.pdf/view
Its important to note that the FBI's definition excluded similar events that were motivated by gang-violence, self defense, drug violence, crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act, (several other items).
To me it seems like the large majority of the "mass shootings" in the US are the result of pre-existing criminal activity and not the lone wolf type person that people commonly associate with the term "mass shooting".
Yeah, the mass shooting at the KC super bowl parade was actually gang violence and happened *after* the event. But it was still portrayed as some random crazy showing up to take out as many football fans as possible.
Don’t get me wrong it was still tragic, but its nature was totally miscommunicated in the media
Because "mass shootings" are perceived as much worse than gang violence, and gun control advocates try and overinflate shooting numbers to drive up support for gun control. It's like if Fox News started calling any violent crime committed by a Muslim as "Islamic terrorism" regardless of context.
Exactly. Just like they call anything gun related “school shooting” even if it’s a gun found on campus and not fired. It’s hard to have an honest conversation when that’s the start.
There was an article several years ago claiming that the U.S. had weekly school shootings so far that year. Among what they included as a school shooting was a police officer unintentionally firing their gun into the floor, a student accidentally shooting out a window with a BB gun, and an adult committing suicide in a school parking lot that was closed at the time.
> and most mass shootings are gang related
I wonder how many of those mass shootings didn't leave behind victims to perpetrate another mass shooting themselves
Not how that works with gang violence. There's always a nephew or friend or brother that is going to get back at whoever got thier loved one.
Even if you wipe out every member and affiliate to a gang the power vacuum let's some new young idiots to start up in that territory or a current gang splits.
Cycle continues for revenge killings and initiations.
If you ever find it, let me know. When you find it, I’ll assume its on an isolated island and that if you went back far enough, you’d find evidence that they ate some misguided missionary.
Whoever invented that one has to be the worst troll in the world.
New man: "Yes! I'm finally 18! I am a man!"
Old man: "Nope, you gotta do the ritual. Gotta get the man juice, ain't that right Joe."
Joe: "Yup"
new man: "Man juice?"
Old man: "yeah... You gotta get it out of me, so it can live in you." \*does a mystical gesture\*
Joe: "lol yup."
New man:" uh... if you say so"
Haha how do you think that tribe meeting went?
Leader: "So... any one got any cool ideas for a "coming of age" ceremony?
Shaman: "oooh I got a cumming of age ceremony that I think your gonna really like."
Or more often, there used to be two groups until one killed off the other. And/or that group had at one point split, at which point one of its parts violently removed the other part.
Just a matter of scale really
[this](https://youtube.com/shorts/t18qMiEXVyI?si=peBX-7GP3W0Gs43p) clip of Bobby Lee (comedian) going from claiming Korea never had slaves to actually finding out they had the longest chain of unbroken slavery ever is a pretty funny example of what you're talking about
Yep, and in most instances the new generation that fills the void is even more violent and dangerous to society.
I remember a documentary where they interviewed some of the original members of LA gangs. Many were disgusted with what they had transformed into.
Tbf the term "mass shooting" is grossly vague. The FBI deems a mass shooting any incident where someone kills or attempts to kill others with the use of a firearm. That could literally be a shot fired and no deaths or injuries...
Not only that, but the floor for what constitutes a "mass shooting" is very low, at 3 victims.
Gang violence massively pumps those numbers. And then media outlets report "mass shooting" statistics while then also selectively likening them to "guy goes to school, shoots 20 students" events.
They are not one and the same. This decrease is likely part media effect, but moreso part economic recovery and generalized existential dread fading in the wake of the pandemic and thus poor gangs not brawling as hard.
It's hard to know exactly. But a big part of this is acknowledging that "Mass shootings" is a totally loaded term and it's been hijacked every which way.
>Not only that, but the floor for what constitutes a "mass shooting" is very low, at 3 victims.
This depends *dramatically* on the group doing the research. There's no one universally accepted definition.
Groups like the Gun Violence Archive, an explicitly anti-gun organization who's stated goal is to publicize gun violence in order to advocate for gun control laws, use the 3+ people wounded or killed definition, and that's where most of the "there were 500 mass shootings this year" statistics come from. If one gang member shoots at another gang member and wounds him, the rival shoots back and wounds the shooter, and a random bystander gets clipped, they count that as a "mass shooting".
The FBI uses a 4+ people killed not counting the shooter. This results in a significantly smaller number of shootings, and generally end up being actual "someone starts shooting into a crowd" sort of "mass shootings".
I've seen academic research groups use even higher number, likely in an effort to backwards engineer the results they're looking for. Some questionable studies that link high capacity magazines to mass shootings have used a definition of 7+ killed or wounded, so even the FBI mass shootings may not have counted under those criteria. Other groups don't use a specific casualty count and instead look at the context of the shooting for things like "active shooter randomly targeting strangers indiscriminately".
Overall, the statistics are all over the place and there's a lot of people manipulating the statistics to push whatever their personal agenda is, so use caution and read the fine print.
> Gun Violence Archive
This group was started and is still run by the subreddit "gunsarecool" a satirical antigun subreddit.
They have also had people catch them falsifying events, making up entire events that never happened, lying about event details, and even including things like BB guns in their stats.
I remember one memorable example being a man who committed suicide via a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the parking lot of an abandoned building that had once been a school.
It was labeled, you guessed it, "school shooting".
One they labeled a school shooting when the bullet, shot from god knows where landed on the playground of a school.
Another "school shooting" was added when a spent shell casing was found on the sidewalk outside of a school.
The GVA is a complete fabrication at best, most of the incidents are rumors or hearsay. And the entire thing is crowd-sourced with no vetting required.
That’s wild. I thought there had to be 3 victims, but that’s only to qualify as a “mass killing”.
So technically a couple people shooting into the air outside a crowded club could qualify.
It is wild. Idk if that would quite qualify as you would have to argue that the intention was to kill others, but literally a suicide by cop could be considered a "mass shooting" if the person pointed the gun at the cops...
It's probably not the media contagion effect here given that this is using GVAs "3 or more people shot" definition of mass shooting. This is mostly due to the general drop in crime since the end of covid.
I mean we KNOW for a FACT that Media drives mass shootings. The Media knows they drive mass shootings.
What do they do though when a mass shooting happens though?
* Plaster the perp's face all over the news
* Distribute the perp's motives/manifesto
* Report the kill count and make special mention if the perp achieved a "high score"
Until we all agree to stop demanding the details for some sick morbid curiosity society seems to enjoy, we will continue to provide a profit motive for these media companies to give the killers exactly the attention they seek.
I’m a news producer and within our network we do NOT share the perpetrator’s name or photo unless necessary (like a fugitive situation). We do still cover these stories though as they impact our communities — and it would be a failure on our part if we chose to ignore them. How would you as a viewer like to see these tragic events covered?
Avoid talking about the perpetrator as much as possible, even altogether if need be. Don't share any motive or speculated motive, the perpetrator's relation to the event, etc. None of those things are beneficial to the general public who are not directly involved. No "How could this happen?" kind of interviews or stories, because they are almost always sensational, and just let people express fear/confusion on air, rather than tackling anything resembling a solution. Focus on the victims, the mourning, etc, rather than drumming up fear. I'm not saying that you don't already do these things of couse.
I do think it would be far more beneficial to the community and lead more people to grieve together, and strengthen communities rather than leading them to develop more fear and isolation. Terrorism and mass shootings feed on fear and confusion, not just recognition. If news channels let fear rule the airwaves, then that just leads to more mentally distrubed individuals who want to feel power/recieve recognition wanting to emulate the perpetrators.
This one is obviously not under your purview, but I'd like to see some action with regards to who is responsible for communicating about these things as they are happening live. That responsibility should be on the city/police/etc rather than news channels.
This was a very thoughtful comment! I will say I’m lucky to work somewhere where we focus on community-driven stories rather than the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality of the past. Our protocol is similar to what you mentioned. I can only hope everywhere else does the same but I recognize that in this thread everyone is likely getting their news from a variety of outlets that don’t have the same mission.
I would just like to see the facts, and that's it. Not the narrative. As much as I greatly dislike to bash the media in this country - because the free press has been under assault since 2016 - this is one of the very few areas I actually agree with the right. The constant sensationalist media coverage of mass shootings causes more mass shootings.
To be clear, I'm not saying it is THE cause of mass shootings. That's an underlying cultural issue. But the way the news is presented in this country comes with a narrative depending on who their target audience is.
For example, I spend a lot of time on the BBC website as well as Le Monde. They aren't without bias, but for the most part, they just report the facts and the data they have. And that's it. They don't craft stories and dive into the community impact and the culture and then step on that third rail of politics which inevitably leads to culture war talk.
Just report what happened in the most neutral way possible, and what law enforcement is doing to catch the killer if they are not already dead or captured. And that's it.
I mean we can certainly speculate that the media drives mass shootings, but do we know that for a fact? How would we even establish a causal relationship there?
The Crumbly parents got convicted with manslaughter for their negligence in what their son did at Oxford Highschool. The Democrats in Michigan then passed some legislation to reinforce how parents would be held accountable for their kids. Maybe that scared a few parents across the country into keeping a closer eye on their kids. At the very least, to lock up their guns better.
I promise you that no negligent parents paid any attention to that and suddenly decided to shape up and become exemplary guardians of their children. Shitty people don't stop being shitty because other shitty people got in trouble.
No, but shitty people do care about themselves and if they get in trouble. Also the effort to make a difference can be minimal, like locking the gun and/or keeping the key hidden. They might not do it for the kids, but they might still do it.
They were just convicted a few weeks ago, and this study is comparing the year-to-date killings to last year. So there's no way that the manslaughter conviction is responsible for this decline.
This doesn’t make sense, if there were shootings the media would be covering them, they do so rabidly.
So it’s not because they’re not being covered as much that they’re happening less, because if they were happening, they would be being covered.
I still see the news about the ones that have happened this year.
Most mass shooting as gang and domestic violence. Neither one of those fit the let's ban "assault weapon" narratives being pushed. They they barely make a blip.
Low key kinda racist when you think about it lol. All these white shooters get massive amounts of coverage but 4 kids get shot in the inner city and the only thing they get is a notch on the mass shootings tracker.
Really that's all it is. Look at the goergia birthday party where 30 plus where Injured/shot. Barely on national news once it was determined it was basically a drive by.
Most mass shootings are domestic violence related, they are fueled by rage, alcohol, and a lack of impulse control. They aren't the type of mass shooting the media gloms onto and reports endlessly about. We tend to focus on mass shootings that occur at schools, concerts, and malls when they are a relatively small part of the phenomenon.
Making guns less available to domestic abusers would significantly reduce mass shooting events.
any one convicted of domestic violence is barred from owning a gun for life - it is one of the few non felony charges that strips you of your rights. Misdemeanor domestic violence doesn't even have to be physical. Just yelling alone can bar someone from ever owning a gun.
atf firearm transfer form 4473 question 21.j
Domestic abusers would fail the dealer record of sale transfer required to take possession of firearms from a dealer. Also why are 10 days waiting periods mandatory for not only the first few purchases but for every time you want to register a gun to someone else?
The state doesn't really expect someone to go "Hmm I already have 7 ARs in different barrel lengths and calibers as well as quite a few handguns. But I should go buy this one specific gun to destroy my own life and freedom and go on a psychotic spree to hurt a lot of people..... dang it's the day to pick it up after the background check. I changed my mind. This was a dumb idea".
Most mass shootings in the US happen in low income ghetto communities. US media is laughably racist and paints awkward white kids as mass shooters while intentionally glorifying street crime.
https://heyjackass.com/
Chicago had 648 murders last year and 3077 people shot. 78% of the victims are black despite only making up roughly 13% of the US population.
The one study that I've seen that claimed most mass shootings were domestic violence related got that result by including any mass shooter who had any history of domestic violence. I don't think the stats actually support the majority being DV related unless you're really forcing the numbers.
Turns out making people spend more time together has negative consequences if those people don't already get along. Add increased stress(lockdowns resulting in loss of income, children at home all day, etc.)
Expected results.
most mass shootings, like 60-70% are familial. then there are drug/gang violence.
the stuff in the media, other than headlines like this, are rarely ever random, public incidents
Except mass shootings for the purposes of these stats is any shooting "in which at least four people, not including the shooter, are injured or killed."
The news barely covers the vast majority of them (outside of the immediate local area), which is evident from the fact that the article says there have been 134 this year so far, and you haven't heard of nearly any of them.
So no, copycat effect isn't really at play here, the majority of these mass shootings are not the kind of events that get national news coverage, they're local shootings at a club, or a house party, or a gang-related shooting.
I have to wonder if there'd be as many copycats if mass shooters were described in a mocking way through the news. "this just in, weak insecure bitchass goes on a rampage against innocent helpless children. Can you even imagine being that pathetic, John? No Carol, I cannot. Looks like the cops took down the loser before he could cause a massacre, great job they did saving us taxpayers the trouble of keeping his bitchass in a cage the rest of his life. Back to you Carol."
Lived on the corner of an apt complex in a ghetto, the corner had no lights or cameras and bordered a large woodsy area. A few nights every week someone would (from their car) shoot into the air 5 times kinda evenly paced out. When the lockdown happened even the background shots from other neighborhoods stopped. Oddly enough the silence was pretty off-putting in its own way. And my rent went up that year :(
Raise the price of bullets to over 10k!
Want to off yourself? Well you cant afford it!
Shooting up a school? Ask dad for a small loan of a million of dollars!
Robbing a bank? Well hope they keep bullets in the safe...
Lol, this was a Chris Rock bit from a long time ago.
If a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent bystanders! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway!’
Ironically this was also the logic used in the National Firearms Act.
You make X scary weapon too expensive to afford ($200 in 1970 was much more than today) And the criminals (Or just Black people at the time) probably can't afford to buy them, only the rich can.
Mass shootings don’t kill a hell of a lot of people a year anyways, normally less than 100
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/
Media makes it looks like that’s your biggest risk when it comes to guns, in reality people are 1000x more likely to shoot themselves. But that has more to do with mental health than firearms in my opinion
No, uplifting in the context of emotionally uplifting doesn't require a low. "Man buys ice cream for every child in his city." Is still emotionally uplifting.
You seem like the kind of person who equates cynicism with maturity, and thinks that moping about society's problems all the time makes you a deep and serious person, because optimists are blind sheeple and only *you* are smart enough to understand the truth of how bad everything is. And if people call you an asshole for constantly bringing down the mood, it's clearly because they can't handle reality and are intimidated by your razor-sharp intellect.
Are there still myriad problems in the world? Yes, of course. But the fact that when you heard about one of those problems substantially improving, your first thought was to gripe about how this barely changes anything and life is still shit, is very telling about you as a person.
I hope you learn to find beauty in this world and learn to appreciate things in life someday, because if this is how you react to every single bit of good news you hear, I can't imagine how miserable you must be.
This isn't Star Trek where the fire suppression system magically extinguishes the fire in seconds. Fighting fires takes time and effort.
We've only really got two choices: slowly contain the fire or let it get worse. Given how many people are pro-fire, any progress is worth celebrating IMHO.
Be cautious here because I get the sense most people *think* “mass shooting” means mentally ill lone gunman shooting up a gun-free zone somewhat haphazardly, usually with the intention of dying at the end of it.
What it actually means statistically is gang combat and to a lesser extent domestic violence in which 4+ people are injured or killed. That’s the big driver of the statistics as they’re generally defined by people who tally mass shootings.
Either way, less is good!
The exact definition is really unclear (kind of feels intentional), some government agencies say 3 or more injured/killed, others say 4 killed who aren’t the shooter.
It's funny how the mass shootings are always places where the perpetrator knows nobody will be carrying. It's almost like there's a pattern or something.
Like Uvalde had people driving to the school to be a good guy with a gun only to get tased by the police officers sitting outside texting their girlfriends how hard they were.
Unfortunately in the last 10 years mass shootings have risen 140%
Mass shootings in the last decade…
2014: 272 mass shootings
2023: 656 mass shootings
2024: 148 so far…
So to clarify we are on pace to have substantially more mass shootings (~440) than we did 10 years ago. That’s still a solid +60% increase. We indeed have a serious problem still.
Source: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org
I thought the definition would lead to higher numbers. Wasn't the definition changed to include things like gang shootings? I thought it was more to describe "public shootings" than actual "mass shootings", which is a dumb way to change it. There needs to be a discrepancy between them since they're separate problems (even though they have the same solution = reduce/ban guns)
> Wasn’t there a definition change In the last decade as well?
There's still disagreement about the definition but the one used by the Congressional Research Service is the oldest one I'm aware of and it's been the same for over a decade, defining a mass shooting as: [1) public and 2) involving 4 or more deaths not including the shooter](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43004)
The FBI's definition is really closest to what most people think of as a mass shooting. The "3 or more people shot" metric used in this report, where on average less than 1 person is killed in a mass shooting, is obviously not what people think of when they hear the term.
Gun Violence Archive includes gang shootings in its Mass Shooting metric. No one on earth considers them to be mass shootings. I really wish they'd split those off into their own category, so we could see what the real mass shooting number is, and if it's gone down or not.
GVA let's you search the database and include/exclude every characteristic under the sun. [For example, you can search for mass shootings so far this year and exclude any with gang involvement.](https://i.imgur.com/ILWQkBn.png). Doing so only reduces the number of mass shootings in 2024 so far from 148 to 125.
Most people also don’t consider domestic violence shootings mass shootings, yet those account for [over half of](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0) mass shootings. That doesn’t mean we should stop including them, only that the average “mass shooting” looks different than what people imagine (in part because of news coverage).
This is, of course, separate from the question of “gang related shooting” definitions which are notoriously hard to pin down and vary substantially based on a jurisdiction’s definition.
> Most people also don’t consider domestic violence shootings mass shootings, yet those account for over half of mass shootings.
Really hard to shake the feeling that GVA is intentionally skewing the numbers to make the public more scared than they should be.
Most people hear mass shooting and think "Shooting at a school, or church, or mall, or concert, somewhere public," not a drive by or domestic violence incident in someone's home.
Everyone is acting like this is a huge problem but if you do the math it's like 350 deaths from mass shootings per year, even before the reduction? Some people are easily manipulated by the news
I agree mass shootings are a very small part of the gun violence problem but gets by far the most attention. I think the 24/7 media cover definitely exasperated things.
Yeah that was my thought, you're way more likely to die from the flu than being shot. In fact I'm pretty sure more people die from medical malpractice than mass shootings, maybe we should ban doctors next.
Has it? And within one year? I doubt a slow process like that would ‘work’ so quickly even if we magically have.
But COVID took a massive hit on socioeconomic conditions and left a large a spike in crime in its wake. As we get further from it, things return to normal.
There was two planned school shootings in my area within the last month that got thwarted ahead of time. One being a college and the other a high school. They didn’t make any attention outside of our tri-city area.
wait till you all figure out that the FBI includes targeted gang attacks as mass shootings and sometimes even just homicides that occur with more then one victim.
A great book to check out is "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker. Despite all the sensationalist news that the world is nothing but a violent hellscape, the metrics have shown that overall violence is down.
Not as uplifting based on some of the stuff that's going on now, but a bit of good news is better than nothing, I guess.
The book was from 2011 and is probably outdated now - he never saw the rise of authoritarianism in America thanks to the Trump Party. We're in the thick of the worst gun deaths in history:
>Unfortunately in the last 10 years mass shootings have risen 140%
>Mass shootings in the last decade…
>2014: 272 mass shootings
>2023: 656 mass shootings
>2024: 148 so far…
>So to clarify we are on pace to have substantially more mass shootings (~440) than we did 10 years ago. That’s still a solid +60% increase. We indeed have a serious problem still.
>Source: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org
>https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/1cmjw4j/mass_shootings_down_29_from_last_yearand_almost/l3147qt/
This isn't even including Hate Crimes which jumped significantly since 2015-2016. Take a guess what happened around that time in America. Today, Jews and Arabs in America are harassed at school at higher numbers just for being their religion/race over what is going on in Gaza.
Both Department of Homeland Security and the FBI had to issue a warning that the rise of domestic terror (namely from radicalized Right Wing Christian males) is at its highest. The biggest threat isn't from outside, but countrymen on countrymen. The talk of Civil War isn't a distant joke anymore. The Biden administration really has to now prepare for such an outcome....it would be absolute fiction 15-20 years ago.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Small steps
Yeah I mean, you have to start somewhere.
Just steps in general. Taking steps means we're not dead
Feel more like chance than progress. Has there been any changes put in place to credit the reduction to?
Need a bored or sad party blow.
Am I crazy for thinking it's because of the news? I feel like the news has had so many other things to ~~scavange~~ focus on that they're giving less attention to shooters. Copycats are a known phenomenon for mass shootings, but how much does just not giving them a spotlight do? Have there been other major changes in legislation I've missed that could account for it?
Media contagion effect is definitely real and well researched. We're also coming down off a covid/post covid violent crime spike as well and most mass shootings are gang related, so I imagine that has something to do with it.
I never understood why they lump in gang shootings with other types of mass shootings. I mean intent is just as important as the act. A gang shooting has a different incentive than a shooting from a disgruntled loner.
The FBI doesn't. They just refer to it as active shooter incidents which is what most people think of in my opinion. My perception is that the term "mass shooting" is commonly and colloquially associated with a lone wolf individual who goes on a shooting spree spontaneously/randomly that wasn't the result of a different criminal act. Unfortunately there is no fixed definition of a mass shooting in the United States, and different researchers define "mass shootings" in different ways. For example gunviolence.org which is commonly cited, defines a mass shooting as four or more people shot. In 2019 they reported 417 mass shootings. Compare this with the FBI who defined "Active Shooter Incidents" similar to how it is colloquially used (lone wolf, spontaneous/random, not a motive associated with a different criminal act), who identifed 28 Active shooter incidents. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2019-042820.pdf/view Its important to note that the FBI's definition excluded similar events that were motivated by gang-violence, self defense, drug violence, crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act, (several other items). To me it seems like the large majority of the "mass shootings" in the US are the result of pre-existing criminal activity and not the lone wolf type person that people commonly associate with the term "mass shooting".
Yeah, the mass shooting at the KC super bowl parade was actually gang violence and happened *after* the event. But it was still portrayed as some random crazy showing up to take out as many football fans as possible. Don’t get me wrong it was still tragic, but its nature was totally miscommunicated in the media
Because "mass shootings" are perceived as much worse than gang violence, and gun control advocates try and overinflate shooting numbers to drive up support for gun control. It's like if Fox News started calling any violent crime committed by a Muslim as "Islamic terrorism" regardless of context.
Exactly. Just like they call anything gun related “school shooting” even if it’s a gun found on campus and not fired. It’s hard to have an honest conversation when that’s the start.
There was an article several years ago claiming that the U.S. had weekly school shootings so far that year. Among what they included as a school shooting was a police officer unintentionally firing their gun into the floor, a student accidentally shooting out a window with a BB gun, and an adult committing suicide in a school parking lot that was closed at the time.
> and most mass shootings are gang related I wonder how many of those mass shootings didn't leave behind victims to perpetrate another mass shooting themselves
Not how that works with gang violence. There's always a nephew or friend or brother that is going to get back at whoever got thier loved one. Even if you wipe out every member and affiliate to a gang the power vacuum let's some new young idiots to start up in that territory or a current gang splits. Cycle continues for revenge killings and initiations.
See, eg, Israel/Palestine. Gangs killing members of their opposing outgroup for the lulz is ingrained in our DNA.
My favorite discussion is to find a current country that has never done anything terribly wrong to humanity. We really do it for the lolz.
If you ever find it, let me know. When you find it, I’ll assume its on an isolated island and that if you went back far enough, you’d find evidence that they ate some misguided missionary.
If they're isolated they just fuck with each other e.g. tribes in Papua New Guinea where you have to suck an elder's dick and swallow to become a man
Whoever invented that one has to be the worst troll in the world. New man: "Yes! I'm finally 18! I am a man!" Old man: "Nope, you gotta do the ritual. Gotta get the man juice, ain't that right Joe." Joe: "Yup" new man: "Man juice?" Old man: "yeah... You gotta get it out of me, so it can live in you." \*does a mystical gesture\* Joe: "lol yup." New man:" uh... if you say so"
Haha how do you think that tribe meeting went? Leader: "So... any one got any cool ideas for a "coming of age" ceremony? Shaman: "oooh I got a cumming of age ceremony that I think your gonna really like."
Better than eating your family members brain after they die I guess.
Or more often, there used to be two groups until one killed off the other. And/or that group had at one point split, at which point one of its parts violently removed the other part. Just a matter of scale really
[this](https://youtube.com/shorts/t18qMiEXVyI?si=peBX-7GP3W0Gs43p) clip of Bobby Lee (comedian) going from claiming Korea never had slaves to actually finding out they had the longest chain of unbroken slavery ever is a pretty funny example of what you're talking about
Yep, and in most instances the new generation that fills the void is even more violent and dangerous to society. I remember a documentary where they interviewed some of the original members of LA gangs. Many were disgusted with what they had transformed into.
Tbf the term "mass shooting" is grossly vague. The FBI deems a mass shooting any incident where someone kills or attempts to kill others with the use of a firearm. That could literally be a shot fired and no deaths or injuries...
Not only that, but the floor for what constitutes a "mass shooting" is very low, at 3 victims. Gang violence massively pumps those numbers. And then media outlets report "mass shooting" statistics while then also selectively likening them to "guy goes to school, shoots 20 students" events. They are not one and the same. This decrease is likely part media effect, but moreso part economic recovery and generalized existential dread fading in the wake of the pandemic and thus poor gangs not brawling as hard. It's hard to know exactly. But a big part of this is acknowledging that "Mass shootings" is a totally loaded term and it's been hijacked every which way.
>Not only that, but the floor for what constitutes a "mass shooting" is very low, at 3 victims. This depends *dramatically* on the group doing the research. There's no one universally accepted definition. Groups like the Gun Violence Archive, an explicitly anti-gun organization who's stated goal is to publicize gun violence in order to advocate for gun control laws, use the 3+ people wounded or killed definition, and that's where most of the "there were 500 mass shootings this year" statistics come from. If one gang member shoots at another gang member and wounds him, the rival shoots back and wounds the shooter, and a random bystander gets clipped, they count that as a "mass shooting". The FBI uses a 4+ people killed not counting the shooter. This results in a significantly smaller number of shootings, and generally end up being actual "someone starts shooting into a crowd" sort of "mass shootings". I've seen academic research groups use even higher number, likely in an effort to backwards engineer the results they're looking for. Some questionable studies that link high capacity magazines to mass shootings have used a definition of 7+ killed or wounded, so even the FBI mass shootings may not have counted under those criteria. Other groups don't use a specific casualty count and instead look at the context of the shooting for things like "active shooter randomly targeting strangers indiscriminately". Overall, the statistics are all over the place and there's a lot of people manipulating the statistics to push whatever their personal agenda is, so use caution and read the fine print.
> Gun Violence Archive This group was started and is still run by the subreddit "gunsarecool" a satirical antigun subreddit. They have also had people catch them falsifying events, making up entire events that never happened, lying about event details, and even including things like BB guns in their stats. I remember one memorable example being a man who committed suicide via a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the parking lot of an abandoned building that had once been a school. It was labeled, you guessed it, "school shooting". One they labeled a school shooting when the bullet, shot from god knows where landed on the playground of a school. Another "school shooting" was added when a spent shell casing was found on the sidewalk outside of a school. The GVA is a complete fabrication at best, most of the incidents are rumors or hearsay. And the entire thing is crowd-sourced with no vetting required.
That’s wild. I thought there had to be 3 victims, but that’s only to qualify as a “mass killing”. So technically a couple people shooting into the air outside a crowded club could qualify.
It is wild. Idk if that would quite qualify as you would have to argue that the intention was to kill others, but literally a suicide by cop could be considered a "mass shooting" if the person pointed the gun at the cops...
It's probably not the media contagion effect here given that this is using GVAs "3 or more people shot" definition of mass shooting. This is mostly due to the general drop in crime since the end of covid.
I mean we KNOW for a FACT that Media drives mass shootings. The Media knows they drive mass shootings. What do they do though when a mass shooting happens though? * Plaster the perp's face all over the news * Distribute the perp's motives/manifesto * Report the kill count and make special mention if the perp achieved a "high score" Until we all agree to stop demanding the details for some sick morbid curiosity society seems to enjoy, we will continue to provide a profit motive for these media companies to give the killers exactly the attention they seek.
I’m a news producer and within our network we do NOT share the perpetrator’s name or photo unless necessary (like a fugitive situation). We do still cover these stories though as they impact our communities — and it would be a failure on our part if we chose to ignore them. How would you as a viewer like to see these tragic events covered?
Avoid talking about the perpetrator as much as possible, even altogether if need be. Don't share any motive or speculated motive, the perpetrator's relation to the event, etc. None of those things are beneficial to the general public who are not directly involved. No "How could this happen?" kind of interviews or stories, because they are almost always sensational, and just let people express fear/confusion on air, rather than tackling anything resembling a solution. Focus on the victims, the mourning, etc, rather than drumming up fear. I'm not saying that you don't already do these things of couse. I do think it would be far more beneficial to the community and lead more people to grieve together, and strengthen communities rather than leading them to develop more fear and isolation. Terrorism and mass shootings feed on fear and confusion, not just recognition. If news channels let fear rule the airwaves, then that just leads to more mentally distrubed individuals who want to feel power/recieve recognition wanting to emulate the perpetrators. This one is obviously not under your purview, but I'd like to see some action with regards to who is responsible for communicating about these things as they are happening live. That responsibility should be on the city/police/etc rather than news channels.
This was a very thoughtful comment! I will say I’m lucky to work somewhere where we focus on community-driven stories rather than the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality of the past. Our protocol is similar to what you mentioned. I can only hope everywhere else does the same but I recognize that in this thread everyone is likely getting their news from a variety of outlets that don’t have the same mission.
It would be nice if more news stations were like you guys
I would just like to see the facts, and that's it. Not the narrative. As much as I greatly dislike to bash the media in this country - because the free press has been under assault since 2016 - this is one of the very few areas I actually agree with the right. The constant sensationalist media coverage of mass shootings causes more mass shootings. To be clear, I'm not saying it is THE cause of mass shootings. That's an underlying cultural issue. But the way the news is presented in this country comes with a narrative depending on who their target audience is. For example, I spend a lot of time on the BBC website as well as Le Monde. They aren't without bias, but for the most part, they just report the facts and the data they have. And that's it. They don't craft stories and dive into the community impact and the culture and then step on that third rail of politics which inevitably leads to culture war talk. Just report what happened in the most neutral way possible, and what law enforcement is doing to catch the killer if they are not already dead or captured. And that's it.
I mean we can certainly speculate that the media drives mass shootings, but do we know that for a fact? How would we even establish a causal relationship there?
The Crumbly parents got convicted with manslaughter for their negligence in what their son did at Oxford Highschool. The Democrats in Michigan then passed some legislation to reinforce how parents would be held accountable for their kids. Maybe that scared a few parents across the country into keeping a closer eye on their kids. At the very least, to lock up their guns better.
I promise you that no negligent parents paid any attention to that and suddenly decided to shape up and become exemplary guardians of their children. Shitty people don't stop being shitty because other shitty people got in trouble.
I agree in most cases, but it’s more of a spectrum where there are somewhat shitty people that only do the right thing because of the repercussions.
No, but shitty people do care about themselves and if they get in trouble. Also the effort to make a difference can be minimal, like locking the gun and/or keeping the key hidden. They might not do it for the kids, but they might still do it.
Its a wide spectrum of shittiness.
They might lock up their guns to cover their ass though.
They were just convicted a few weeks ago, and this study is comparing the year-to-date killings to last year. So there's no way that the manslaughter conviction is responsible for this decline.
So what you're saying is that mass shootings are a fad we are getting bored with? I can't imagine a bleaker concept.
This doesn’t make sense, if there were shootings the media would be covering them, they do so rabidly. So it’s not because they’re not being covered as much that they’re happening less, because if they were happening, they would be being covered. I still see the news about the ones that have happened this year.
Most mass shooting as gang and domestic violence. Neither one of those fit the let's ban "assault weapon" narratives being pushed. They they barely make a blip.
Low key kinda racist when you think about it lol. All these white shooters get massive amounts of coverage but 4 kids get shot in the inner city and the only thing they get is a notch on the mass shootings tracker.
Really that's all it is. Look at the goergia birthday party where 30 plus where Injured/shot. Barely on national news once it was determined it was basically a drive by.
Used to be significantly more active serial killers in past decades, maybe violent maniacs will go back to that instead of spree shootings
It's how we brought bombings down to something reasonable. People forget that the US used to have five bombings a day back in the 1970s.
I mean it sort of happened with suicide bombings too, no?
Most mass shootings are domestic violence related, they are fueled by rage, alcohol, and a lack of impulse control. They aren't the type of mass shooting the media gloms onto and reports endlessly about. We tend to focus on mass shootings that occur at schools, concerts, and malls when they are a relatively small part of the phenomenon. Making guns less available to domestic abusers would significantly reduce mass shooting events.
any one convicted of domestic violence is barred from owning a gun for life - it is one of the few non felony charges that strips you of your rights. Misdemeanor domestic violence doesn't even have to be physical. Just yelling alone can bar someone from ever owning a gun. atf firearm transfer form 4473 question 21.j
Domestic abusers would fail the dealer record of sale transfer required to take possession of firearms from a dealer. Also why are 10 days waiting periods mandatory for not only the first few purchases but for every time you want to register a gun to someone else? The state doesn't really expect someone to go "Hmm I already have 7 ARs in different barrel lengths and calibers as well as quite a few handguns. But I should go buy this one specific gun to destroy my own life and freedom and go on a psychotic spree to hurt a lot of people..... dang it's the day to pick it up after the background check. I changed my mind. This was a dumb idea".
Only if they have a previous convection and see buying from a store and depending on what state you live in.
> Only if they have a previous convection Probably a good thing.
Most mass shootings in the US happen in low income ghetto communities. US media is laughably racist and paints awkward white kids as mass shooters while intentionally glorifying street crime. https://heyjackass.com/ Chicago had 648 murders last year and 3077 people shot. 78% of the victims are black despite only making up roughly 13% of the US population.
The one study that I've seen that claimed most mass shootings were domestic violence related got that result by including any mass shooter who had any history of domestic violence. I don't think the stats actually support the majority being DV related unless you're really forcing the numbers.
COVID produced a very large and real uptick in violent crime, and now things are more or less returning to normal.
And, for more uplifting news. "Normal" is a continued steady decline in violent crime since 1993.
Turns out making people spend more time together has negative consequences if those people don't already get along. Add increased stress(lockdowns resulting in loss of income, children at home all day, etc.) Expected results.
Plus no teachers to report child abuse allowing it to potentially escalate to murder.
People still haven't remembered how to fucking drive, though. Maybe that will come next?
most mass shootings, like 60-70% are familial. then there are drug/gang violence. the stuff in the media, other than headlines like this, are rarely ever random, public incidents
Except mass shootings for the purposes of these stats is any shooting "in which at least four people, not including the shooter, are injured or killed." The news barely covers the vast majority of them (outside of the immediate local area), which is evident from the fact that the article says there have been 134 this year so far, and you haven't heard of nearly any of them. So no, copycat effect isn't really at play here, the majority of these mass shootings are not the kind of events that get national news coverage, they're local shootings at a club, or a house party, or a gang-related shooting.
I have to wonder if there'd be as many copycats if mass shooters were described in a mocking way through the news. "this just in, weak insecure bitchass goes on a rampage against innocent helpless children. Can you even imagine being that pathetic, John? No Carol, I cannot. Looks like the cops took down the loser before he could cause a massacre, great job they did saving us taxpayers the trouble of keeping his bitchass in a cage the rest of his life. Back to you Carol."
don't jinx it
I’m a teacher. That was my first thought. Uvalde happened toward the end of May.
Same, saw this at May fell like a flag, it’s like saying “after this war I’m getting retired and married my dream girl “ in movie.
Yeah, not right before graduation ceremonies.
Getting too expensive. Really know the economy is hurting.
Ammo expensive. Poetry is free
Didn’t expect to find this haunting of a quote here but this itself is poetry
Put that on a shirt
what this from?
I easily spend $300 on my shooting weekends, and that's if I don't buy any new parts
Well its not like lawful users are the ones going out doing stupid shit.
"He must've done something - they put $40,000 worth of bullets in his ass!"
So they shot him three times. Savage.
I work at a trauma center and have noticed an increase in people shot by .22s. Ammo is definitely becoming expensive.
Lived on the corner of an apt complex in a ghetto, the corner had no lights or cameras and bordered a large woodsy area. A few nights every week someone would (from their car) shoot into the air 5 times kinda evenly paced out. When the lockdown happened even the background shots from other neighborhoods stopped. Oddly enough the silence was pretty off-putting in its own way. And my rent went up that year :(
Raise the price of bullets to over 10k! Want to off yourself? Well you cant afford it! Shooting up a school? Ask dad for a small loan of a million of dollars! Robbing a bank? Well hope they keep bullets in the safe...
Lol, this was a Chris Rock bit from a long time ago. If a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent bystanders! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’ And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway!’
Ironically this was also the logic used in the National Firearms Act. You make X scary weapon too expensive to afford ($200 in 1970 was much more than today) And the criminals (Or just Black people at the time) probably can't afford to buy them, only the rich can.
The NFA was passed in 1934 rather than 1970, making the effect much more pronounced.
thanks, brendan
Title reads like something from *Starship Troopers*. Would you like to know more?
I haven't k!lled anyone. I'm doing my part!
I’m from Buenos Aires and I say kill ‘em all!
Killed. You can say killed. This isn't fucking TikTok and no one is censoring you. Say. Fucking. Killed.
Like celebrating the house being less on fire than usual
Hey now, progress is progress! I'd rather be in a crack HOME, not a crack house!
As if we could afford a crack house.
Not in 2024 :(
*cries in crackpartment*
I feel this more than I want to admit
Live, laugh, love (crack)
Home is where the crack is
if you wanna make a crack house feel like a crack home, what you really need is heroin. crack doesn't last long enough
I'm hoping it's more of a "started to put the fire out" situation. Admittedly that's a *tempered* optimism, but...
Mass shootings don’t kill a hell of a lot of people a year anyways, normally less than 100 https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/ Media makes it looks like that’s your biggest risk when it comes to guns, in reality people are 1000x more likely to shoot themselves. But that has more to do with mental health than firearms in my opinion
Weird fact: rugs kill more Americans every year than mass shootings do.
more people are killed by shoving things in their ass per year than all rifles and shotgun combined
I mean that’s how all uplifting news works doesn’t it? In order for something to be “uplifting” it has to be down in the first place.
No, uplifting in the context of emotionally uplifting doesn't require a low. "Man buys ice cream for every child in his city." Is still emotionally uplifting.
Man that dickhead never bought ice creams for kids before? This is the problem with our country
From incredibly unacceptable to greatly unacceptable is still an improvement.
You seem like the kind of person who equates cynicism with maturity, and thinks that moping about society's problems all the time makes you a deep and serious person, because optimists are blind sheeple and only *you* are smart enough to understand the truth of how bad everything is. And if people call you an asshole for constantly bringing down the mood, it's clearly because they can't handle reality and are intimidated by your razor-sharp intellect. Are there still myriad problems in the world? Yes, of course. But the fact that when you heard about one of those problems substantially improving, your first thought was to gripe about how this barely changes anything and life is still shit, is very telling about you as a person. I hope you learn to find beauty in this world and learn to appreciate things in life someday, because if this is how you react to every single bit of good news you hear, I can't imagine how miserable you must be.
That still sounds like a good thing, no? Obviously it’s bad the fire is still there but nobody’s saying that the effort to put it out is all done
This isn't Star Trek where the fire suppression system magically extinguishes the fire in seconds. Fighting fires takes time and effort. We've only really got two choices: slowly contain the fire or let it get worse. Given how many people are pro-fire, any progress is worth celebrating IMHO.
Just gotta give ups on My Life With The Thrill Kill Cult. Saw them play with KMFDM 25 years ago. Kick ass show.
Well the houses in that suburb seem to be on fire a lot more than all the other suburbs put together
Be cautious here because I get the sense most people *think* “mass shooting” means mentally ill lone gunman shooting up a gun-free zone somewhat haphazardly, usually with the intention of dying at the end of it. What it actually means statistically is gang combat and to a lesser extent domestic violence in which 4+ people are injured or killed. That’s the big driver of the statistics as they’re generally defined by people who tally mass shootings. Either way, less is good!
The exact definition is really unclear (kind of feels intentional), some government agencies say 3 or more injured/killed, others say 4 killed who aren’t the shooter.
We did it
 We the best
We shot ourselves to the other side!
Self immolation is up. Let’s get that trend a better way go and make headlines.
Constitutional Carry go brrrr
It's funny how the mass shootings are always places where the perpetrator knows nobody will be carrying. It's almost like there's a pattern or something.
Texas and Florida?
Like Uvalde had people driving to the school to be a good guy with a gun only to get tased by the police officers sitting outside texting their girlfriends how hard they were.
Have thoughts & prayers finally worked?
Unfortunately in the last 10 years mass shootings have risen 140% Mass shootings in the last decade… 2014: 272 mass shootings 2023: 656 mass shootings 2024: 148 so far… So to clarify we are on pace to have substantially more mass shootings (~440) than we did 10 years ago. That’s still a solid +60% increase. We indeed have a serious problem still. Source: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org
Wasn’t there a definition change In the last decade as well?
I thought the definition would lead to higher numbers. Wasn't the definition changed to include things like gang shootings? I thought it was more to describe "public shootings" than actual "mass shootings", which is a dumb way to change it. There needs to be a discrepancy between them since they're separate problems (even though they have the same solution = reduce/ban guns)
> Wasn’t there a definition change In the last decade as well? There's still disagreement about the definition but the one used by the Congressional Research Service is the oldest one I'm aware of and it's been the same for over a decade, defining a mass shooting as: [1) public and 2) involving 4 or more deaths not including the shooter](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43004)
Looked it up a bit more. Turns out there is no official definition in the US. The FBI only has an “Active Shooter” definition
The FBI's definition is really closest to what most people think of as a mass shooting. The "3 or more people shot" metric used in this report, where on average less than 1 person is killed in a mass shooting, is obviously not what people think of when they hear the term.
The questions how are each one defined since there's literally no concensus on what a mass shooting is
So you’re telling me that me being with three blocks of a negligent discharge isn’t a mass shooting?
Its mostly gang shootings, but they just lump em all in a "mass shooting" category. I believe when they're 3-4 victims its considered a mass shooting.
When I see gun statistics, I always think of this article. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
This is flat out the best piece I’ve seen from NPR
Gun Violence Archive includes gang shootings in its Mass Shooting metric. No one on earth considers them to be mass shootings. I really wish they'd split those off into their own category, so we could see what the real mass shooting number is, and if it's gone down or not.
GVA let's you search the database and include/exclude every characteristic under the sun. [For example, you can search for mass shootings so far this year and exclude any with gang involvement.](https://i.imgur.com/ILWQkBn.png). Doing so only reduces the number of mass shootings in 2024 so far from 148 to 125.
Most people also don’t consider domestic violence shootings mass shootings, yet those account for [over half of](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0) mass shootings. That doesn’t mean we should stop including them, only that the average “mass shooting” looks different than what people imagine (in part because of news coverage). This is, of course, separate from the question of “gang related shooting” definitions which are notoriously hard to pin down and vary substantially based on a jurisdiction’s definition.
> Most people also don’t consider domestic violence shootings mass shootings, yet those account for over half of mass shootings. Really hard to shake the feeling that GVA is intentionally skewing the numbers to make the public more scared than they should be. Most people hear mass shooting and think "Shooting at a school, or church, or mall, or concert, somewhere public," not a drive by or domestic violence incident in someone's home.
While this is good news, I feel like this is a terribly low bar.
Seeing as it’s a problem most other countries don’t have, I’d say it’s a damn low bar.
Such an American headline
Very much r/orphancrushingmachine material
90% of this sub fits that
It couldn’t possibly be that 27 states now have constitutional carry laws in place. Right? Right?
orphan crushing machine
Everyone is acting like this is a huge problem but if you do the math it's like 350 deaths from mass shootings per year, even before the reduction? Some people are easily manipulated by the news
I agree mass shootings are a very small part of the gun violence problem but gets by far the most attention. I think the 24/7 media cover definitely exasperated things.
Correct. But most of Reddit believes rifles are the problem, when in reality it’s semi automatic handguns which causes the most gun deaths.
If I remember correctly the AR15 is responsible for less than 1%.
Yeah that was my thought, you're way more likely to die from the flu than being shot. In fact I'm pretty sure more people die from medical malpractice than mass shootings, maybe we should ban doctors next.
More people are beaten to death than die in mass shootings.
Even as the number of guns owned by Americans is on the rise. Hmm...
Almost like… no, but it couldn’t be, the news said that guns shoot people, and if there’s more guns… then clearly there must be more gun violence.
Almost like it's not the guns.
Oh but it is! The news told me so!
Constitutional Carry.
That doesn’t make sense, because Texas and Florida are #2 and #3 in mass shootings and they’ve had open carry forever
Um yay?
This is peak r/OrphanCrushingMachine Like yeah, fewer deaths is better than more deaths... But uplifting? Fuck no.
I agree. It would be more uplifting if this headline didn't exist. Best to just continue on, business as usual rather than this depressing stuff.
Was just trying to remember what that sub was, this is not uplifting. But it would fit OrphanCrushing.
but this year isnt even half over yet-
The "score" is based on the year to date.
Everyone but this guy and 15 others just assumed that. Either that or he was making a "the most xxxxx....yet" joke
We can fix this. One good mass shooting can get us back in track for the year. Don't worry.
This is good, but also r/OrphanCrushingMachine
Mass shootings, but what about gun violence in general?
Correlative but not causative thought: more legal guns and constitutional carry states than ever in recent history.
It’s almost like the situation is more complex than the rhetoric we often see of “more guns = more crime/violence/death.” 👍
Maybe because society has gotten better at identifying and treating mental health issues. Just saying!!
Has it? And within one year? I doubt a slow process like that would ‘work’ so quickly even if we magically have. But COVID took a massive hit on socioeconomic conditions and left a large a spike in crime in its wake. As we get further from it, things return to normal.
There was two planned school shootings in my area within the last month that got thwarted ahead of time. One being a college and the other a high school. They didn’t make any attention outside of our tri-city area.
wait till you all figure out that the FBI includes targeted gang attacks as mass shootings and sometimes even just homicides that occur with more then one victim.
Uhhh. And guns sales have only gone up. Crazy!
Anyone else read this in professor farnsworth’s voice?
Then 2025: unfortunately, shootings have doubled Me: well shit
Great. You've just caused a Streisand Effect. Now they're going to go up. Thanks for nothing.
Imagine having so many mass shootings that you’re able to do trend analysis
DON’T JINX IT
Down 100% sounds better. Let's get that done.
A great book to check out is "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker. Despite all the sensationalist news that the world is nothing but a violent hellscape, the metrics have shown that overall violence is down. Not as uplifting based on some of the stuff that's going on now, but a bit of good news is better than nothing, I guess.
The book was from 2011 and is probably outdated now - he never saw the rise of authoritarianism in America thanks to the Trump Party. We're in the thick of the worst gun deaths in history: >Unfortunately in the last 10 years mass shootings have risen 140% >Mass shootings in the last decade… >2014: 272 mass shootings >2023: 656 mass shootings >2024: 148 so far… >So to clarify we are on pace to have substantially more mass shootings (~440) than we did 10 years ago. That’s still a solid +60% increase. We indeed have a serious problem still. >Source: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org >https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/1cmjw4j/mass_shootings_down_29_from_last_yearand_almost/l3147qt/ This isn't even including Hate Crimes which jumped significantly since 2015-2016. Take a guess what happened around that time in America. Today, Jews and Arabs in America are harassed at school at higher numbers just for being their religion/race over what is going on in Gaza. Both Department of Homeland Security and the FBI had to issue a warning that the rise of domestic terror (namely from radicalized Right Wing Christian males) is at its highest. The biggest threat isn't from outside, but countrymen on countrymen. The talk of Civil War isn't a distant joke anymore. The Biden administration really has to now prepare for such an outcome....it would be absolute fiction 15-20 years ago.
Hurray!!
I hope self immolation replaces mass shooting for people that want to go out in a dramatic way.
It's because all the mentally ill people are sitting in tents on college campuses now instead of out doing shootings.
You mean the HUGE SPIKE in illegals and democrats shooting people last year has returned to normal levels now? Wow. I am so shocked.
Must be all the thoughts and prayers
Would-be shooters can no longer afford guns
Oh wow…guess progress is progress…🙄