• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The worst is the Gun Violence Archive and their “mass shooting index” which gets quoted uncritically in the media, so you get headlines like:

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/mass-shootings-days-2023-database-shows/story?id=96609874

    "There have been more mass shootings than days in 2023, database shows

    The United States has experienced 627 mass shootings so far this year."

    The problem is they define “mass shooting” differently from how the public sees a mass shooting.

    Their definition is a shooting event where 4 or more people are injured or killed.

    So were there 627 events similar to the UNLV situation where a nut with a gun shows up in a public place and starts shooting indescriminately?

    No.

    Most of the shootings listed on the Gun Violence Archive are situations where there was a party, alcohol or drugs were involved, two parties got into an argument, the argument turned into a fight, and people got shot. That’s not how most people define a “mass shooting”.

    I’d argue for a mass shooting definition of “person(s) arrive at a public location with the sole intention of shooting as many people as possible.”

    That would rule out the bar fight incidents, or robberies gone bad, or people who go nuts and kill their family in their own house. We should distinguish between psychotic episodes that put the public at risk, vs. normal crime, vs. domestic vioence that does not involve the general public.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      So your objection is that they call a mass shooting a mass shooting? What magic number would you like them to use?

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, my objection is they call normal shootings mass shootings with the agenda of making and keeping people scared.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t think the nra telling people to be scared and that they need a gun to feel safe is more of the issue?

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not really, because the vast, vast, number of gun owners don’t use them.

            Let me give you some perspective…

            We don’t REALLY know, but the best estimate is there are around 474 MILLION guns in the United States.

            https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/

            In 2021, 48,830 people died from gun injuries.

            https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

            54% of those were suicides. So 22,462 murders or accidents.

            Gun laws are never going to prevent suicides, only national mental health care can do that. So looking at the murders and accidents:

            22,462 / 474,000,000? 0.0000473878

            That’s not a crisis, it’s a rounding error. And, yes, each one of those 22,000 deaths individually is a tragedy, but that also means 473,978,000 guns sat around collecting dust.

            • Nudding@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              In 2021, 48,830 people died from gun injuries.

              Jesus christ… Let’s compare to other developed nations, wanna do per capita or total?

                  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh, I absolutely get it, what folks outside the US don’t get is the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere.

                    To repeal it, you first have to get 290 votes in the House, which is largely insurmountable. It took George Santos to get that many Congressmen to agree on something.

                    Then you need 67 votes in the Senate, the body that can’t get past 60 to disable a filibuster.

                    Assuming, miracle of miracles, that happens, then you need ratification by 38 states.

                    Biden only won 25, and of those only 19 have Democratic statehouses. You’d need 19 red states to be on board with giving up guns, assuming you didn’t lose any blue states.

                    So, yeah, Good Luck!

                • Nudding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re right, you guys have the right to shoot yourselves and each other. Carry on.