It’s disingenuous because they’re not everywhere. They’re in a specific subset of high crime areas.
It’s a very own problem in its own right, but when including in a statistic used to represent all of America as shooting people up is what makes it a poor and often intentionally misleading statistic as compared to how safe you actually are in the average area
and it regularly involves a specific group of people, often times doesn’t really even involve every day normal people, as opposed to a mass shooting, where the literal point is killing normal people.
Exactly! We’re not having hundreds of random shootings in a given year, a very small subset are those crazy, heinous shootings where someone decides to hurt as many people as possible. Most of the incidents don’t make national news because they’re something like a drive by or similar.
We should absolutely fix the gang problems, but the solutions there are very different from the solutions for random mass shootings.
We all know exactly what you’re really saying here and you’ll deny and make excuses about it.
Just because you read into it wrong doesn’t make your bullshit interpretation correct.
Yes, There are innocent bystanders that die. It’s a major issue. The only thing I’m trying to say is that it isn’t the same issue as widespread violence
doesn’t really even involve every day normal people
You used those additional qualifiers. You’re just back peddling. You’re clearly indicating it’s not a big deal because it’s not people like you who are affected.
that’s actually a better argument for me ironically.
Europe is more densely populated, among a smaller landmass (if we explicitly refer to western europe) making it MORE likely that any mass violence events hurt more random people.
Where as the US has LESS people, across MORE space, making it even more unlikely for you to be involved in these attacks, because people are simply less likely to be in those places, at the time of the attack.
Of course the US has disproportionately more acts of violence against other people, than somewhere like europe, but there are a variety of reasons this could be the case, but it’s questionable whether this makes you “significantly” more likely to experience an attack, considering you also spend “considerably less” time around other people in general.
Also to be clear, it’s literally just true, america is a huge fucking country. If you include eastern europe, which i don’t think is a fair comparison given that eastern europe is historically and demographically different from western europe (the usual examples provided) The entire continent is slightly bigger than the continental US including alaska. If you remove all of eastern europe, it shrinks considerably. (and this may include part of russia? I can’t find solid numbers)
And looking at wikipedia, seems to imply that a portion of russia is included, so if that calculates into the landmass, that’s substantially throwing it off. I mean to be clear, you would comparing the population and landmass of the european continent against the US, which is not the entire north american continent, that is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the US is alone.
You need to look at how they classify “mass shooting,” because a massive number of these are gang violence, since “mass shooting” usually means at least 4 people involved. Those tend to happen in dense cities, like Chicago or LA, not in the middle of nowhere.
So if you’re not in the bad part of a large city and aren’t involved with any gangs, your chance of being involved in a mass shooting is incredibly rare.
In 2022 or 2023 there was one mass shooting for every day of the year. Anon was simply in the wrong place.
https://www.massshootingtracker.site/
Looks like they’re on track for another great year of mass shootings!
I mean, most of those are gang shootings, no? Those are always a bit disingenuous to call mass shootings.
People overstate the danger.
(And 90 in a year is still a small % of people when we have 300 million, if you look at %)
So… I’m curious why you think gang shootings shouldn’t count or is a bit disingenuous to include.
It’s disingenuous because they’re not everywhere. They’re in a specific subset of high crime areas.
It’s a very own problem in its own right, but when including in a statistic used to represent all of America as shooting people up is what makes it a poor and often intentionally misleading statistic as compared to how safe you actually are in the average area
They’re also typically more targeted, less random
and it regularly involves a specific group of people, often times doesn’t really even involve every day normal people, as opposed to a mass shooting, where the literal point is killing normal people.
Exactly! We’re not having hundreds of random shootings in a given year, a very small subset are those crazy, heinous shootings where someone decides to hurt as many people as possible. Most of the incidents don’t make national news because they’re something like a drive by or similar.
We should absolutely fix the gang problems, but the solutions there are very different from the solutions for random mass shootings.
Nice dog whistle.
The virctims in gang violence include innocent bystanders.
We all know exactly what you’re really saying here and you’ll deny and make excuses about it.
Just because you read into it wrong doesn’t make your bullshit interpretation correct.
Yes, There are innocent bystanders that die. It’s a major issue. The only thing I’m trying to say is that it isn’t the same issue as widespread violence
You used those additional qualifiers. You’re just back peddling. You’re clearly indicating it’s not a big deal because it’s not people like you who are affected.
i mean, the US is also fucking huge compared to somewhere like europe, so that “wrong place” is the entire continental US.
There are 745 million people in Europe. Classic American exceptionalism.
that’s actually a better argument for me ironically.
Europe is more densely populated, among a smaller landmass (if we explicitly refer to western europe) making it MORE likely that any mass violence events hurt more random people.
Where as the US has LESS people, across MORE space, making it even more unlikely for you to be involved in these attacks, because people are simply less likely to be in those places, at the time of the attack.
Of course the US has disproportionately more acts of violence against other people, than somewhere like europe, but there are a variety of reasons this could be the case, but it’s questionable whether this makes you “significantly” more likely to experience an attack, considering you also spend “considerably less” time around other people in general.
Also to be clear, it’s literally just true, america is a huge fucking country. If you include eastern europe, which i don’t think is a fair comparison given that eastern europe is historically and demographically different from western europe (the usual examples provided) The entire continent is slightly bigger than the continental US including alaska. If you remove all of eastern europe, it shrinks considerably. (and this may include part of russia? I can’t find solid numbers)
And looking at wikipedia, seems to imply that a portion of russia is included, so if that calculates into the landmass, that’s substantially throwing it off. I mean to be clear, you would comparing the population and landmass of the european continent against the US, which is not the entire north american continent, that is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the US is alone.
maybe research your point better before yapping.
You need to look at how they classify “mass shooting,” because a massive number of these are gang violence, since “mass shooting” usually means at least 4 people involved. Those tend to happen in dense cities, like Chicago or LA, not in the middle of nowhere.
So if you’re not in the bad part of a large city and aren’t involved with any gangs, your chance of being involved in a mass shooting is incredibly rare.