• Marin_Rider
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    bruh 4 people injured or killed in a single incident absolutely is a mass shooting. I’m trying to get my head around how you are downplaying this

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The standards in America are fucking crazy. “Yeah bro my cousin was buying some weed, next thing you know 4 people shot dead, but that shouldn’t count” lmao.

      • Marin_Rider
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        lol the fact it’s just a casual story about a drug shoot out with 4 dead with a direct connection to OP and OP doesn’t think that’s weird is confusing as fuck to me

        • Obi@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right? I literally have never heard of anyone getting shot even if I count friends of friends of friends x10. And I spent half my adult life in connections with very dodgy circles.

          Their “just another normal shooting” story would make national news for weeks if it happened here.

          • telllos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Got really sad this summer, relatives from the US visited and we went to the lake to do Stand up paddle. Upon seeing the life veste, I heard, looks like the vest we wear for school shooting drill, :/

      • telllos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, It’s so wild. Like, they are so delusional.

        Let’s push back the classification of mass shooting to lower the number. Ok, so we need one shooter and at least 10 dead. If people are only injured it shouldn’t count. And the victim can’t be criminal or have a criminal background. If drug or alcohol, not a mass shooting.

    • Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gang shootings make up the vast majority of “mass shootings”

      These gang members are the very definition of criminal, they know their actions are highly illegal. Making more guns illegal will not stop them

      • Balex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Huh? Are you saying that the white school/mall shooters weren’t aware that killing people is illegal?

          • HorseWithNoName@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            this is the most idiotic reply I’ve seen on lemmy

            Idk, I kind of like this one:

            Gang shootings make up the vast majority of “mass shootings”

            These gang members are the very definition of criminal, they know their actions are highly illegal. Making more guns illegal will not stop them

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Super simple, look at the example I cited of a drug buy gone bad. That’s NOT a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive counts it as such even though it happened in a private home, not a public place, the shooters and victims involved were committing another crime when the shooting happened, and they were all there for the explicit purpose of committing that other crime, they didn’t go there to shoot each other.

      If you can’t tell the difference between that and some psycho turning up in a grocery store to shoot as many people as possible, I don’t know what to tell you. The circumstances are completely different.

      • Marin_Rider
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        the difference is intent, not outcome. 4 people shot. mass shooting. don’t care why they shot each other. any other country doesn’t just have “drug deals gone bad oops 4 dead but it’s just another tuesday” unless it’s a literal organised crime thing that went REAL bad and would have greater repercussions than just a couple of hicks you know

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          People do care why they shot each other, because in one case the general public is at risk and in the other the general public is not at risk.

          That needs to be the definition of a mass shooting. Let’s pull a hypothetical… if the Heaven’s Gate nutjobs had all shot each other instead of poisoning themselves (39 dead), would you consider that a mass shooting?

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

          For me, it happened on private property, solely among members of a cult, did not involve the public or innocent victims… it’s a tragedy, it’s a failure of multiple social safety nets, but it wouldn’t be the same as someone killing 39 innocent, uninvolved, people in a school or shopping center.

          • telllos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The general public is definitely at risk if a drug buy goes bad a bullets start flying all over the place.

              • ChronosWing@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you not realize that bullets go through walls? Luckily it was contained but could have easily turned into a tragedy if some toddler sleeping next door gets hit by a stray bullet. You are arguing semantics, just because it happened at someone’s home instead of public doesn’t not make it a mass shooting. You just want the numbers to look better so you can ignore certain types of gun violence. When in reality it should be lumped together because it is a systematic problem that needs to be fixed.

          • Obi@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Of course it should count as a mass shooting if 39 people shot themselves/each other. You’re looking for the definition of an act of terrorism, that has nothing to do with mass shooting. If we reverse your logic, and a guy kills 39 innocent bystanders but they used a bomb, would you then also call that a mass shooting?

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Terrorism has a definition. It’s an act of violence in service to a political ideology. None of the mass shootings have been classified as terrorism, though I’d argue the ones in the predominately black supermarket or church and the one in the predominately hispanic Walmart probably should have been.

            • Dax87@forum.stellarcastle.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is no widely-accepted definition of “mass shooting” and different organizations tracking such incidents use different definitions. Definitions of mass shootings exclude warfare and sometimes exclude instances of gang violence, armed robberies, and familicides. The perpetrator of an ongoing mass shooting may be referred to as an active shooter.

              In the United States, the country with the most mass shootings, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 defines mass killings as three or more killings in a single incident.[1] A Congressional Research Service report from 2013 specifies four or more killings on indiscriminate victims while excluding violence committed as a means to an end, such as robbery or terrorism.[2] Media outlets such as CNN and some crime violence research groups such as the Gun Violence Archive define mass shootings as involving “four or more shot (injured or killed) in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter”.[3] Mother Jones magazine defines mass shootings as indiscriminate rampages killing three or more individuals excluding the perpetrator, gang violence, and armed robbery.[4][5] An Australian study from 2006 specifies five individuals killed.[6]

              there is no one definition