T O P
Shenanigans_626

Ridiculously misleading. The source is an anti-gun activist group and they include things like gang drive-bys with no fatalities. At least one of their listed shootings I clicked on counted 4 shot, but the sole source for the listing said 2 shot.


topcat5

Indeed. No source given. Could have been a monkey throwing ink at a map.


Shenanigans_626

No, there's a source given. It's just a bullshit source using bullshit criteria to push a political agenda.


JohnLaw1717

I hope we get 4 more anti-gun posts from wildly inaccurate sources again today. Like we seem to get every day. Its concerning if you have to invent shit to make your worldview work.


Trudzilllla

Criticizing a source without providing your own, better source is Lazy AF. There are [several](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/31/infographic-how-many-mass-shootings-has-the-us-had-in-2022) other [sources](https://massshootingtracker.site/) that back up [these claims](https://www.theviolenceproject.org/). and it's very easy to verify if you'd bother doing your own research. Are there various definitions of mass shootings that complicate the reporting of the issue? yes. Is there \*any\* definition of mass shooting which makes it looks like this isn't a pervasive and uniquely American Crisis? Heck no there's not.


Shenanigans_626

My dude you just linked a bunch of articles that use **this source** as their source. >Is there *any* definition of mass shooting which makes it looks like this isn't a pervasive and uniquely American Crisis? Heck no there's not. [Yep.](https://crimeresearch.org/2018/11/new-cprc-research-mass-public-shootings-are-much-higher-in-the-rest-of-the-world-and-increasing-much-more-quickly/).


Trudzilllla

I linked 3 separate shooter databases, which use different criteria but all come to the same conclusion. I know you've got a problem with biased sources, so you might not want to use [CrimeResearch.org](https://CrimeResearch.org) which most factcheck websites rate as 'unreliable'. (The links to the reports they are based off actually [end in dead-links](https://data.mendeley.com/beta/datasets/kt7dmp74zc/files/1fe470c8-03cd-4bfa-9d23-c8742e00364a/file_downloaded)) It also looks like they are intentionally including warzones to skew the data. Comparing mass shootings in the US vs Afghanistan is freaking ridiculous. Conveniently, they don't even show their criteria for what a 'mass shooting' is and they stop counting in 2015 (for unexplained reasons). This data is extremely cherry-picked, funded by Gun Interests, and not supported by ANY independent research.


Shenanigans_626

>I linked 3 separate shooter databases, which use different criteria but all come to the same conclusion. Check the sources in all 3 articles. They're all the same, it's *this infographic*. How is a study by anti-gun groups more reliable than a study by a pro-gun group? >Conveniently, they don't even show their criteria for what a 'mass shooting' is Yes, they do. Its a shooting resulting in 4 or more fatalities that isn't gang related, incidental to another crime, domestic violence or a dispute over sovereignty. >t also looks like they are intentionally including warzones to skew the data. Comparing mass shootings in the US vs Afghanistan is freaking ridiculous. It specifically excludes disputes over sovereignty. >This data is extremely cherry-picked, funded by Gun Interests, And the ONLY study you linked is cherry picked, misleading, inaccurate and funded by anti-gun interests. >and not supported by ANY independent research. What's independence? The only study you linked is also an activist group, just on the other side. >which most factcheck websites rate as 'unreliable'. Yeah, I read Snopes' criticism of the study. Its nonsense.


Trudzilllla

1st, go back and re-read those links. They're all independent and actually link to databases and not an 'infographic' >Its a shooting resulting in 4 or more fatalities that isn't gang related, incidental to another crime, domestic violence or a dispute over sovereignty. ooohhh, so just a custom tailored data set that excludes the majority of the US gun Violence problem. Sure, totally not biased at all. Why on earth would you exclude Gang-shootings when discussing mass shootings? Why on earth exclude domestic violence (which would exclude Uvalde, btw, because it started with a domestic dispute where the shooter kills his grandmother)? The only possible reason for narrowing the data-set like this is because the \*actual\* data doesn't fit your narrative. It's like saying "If you don't pay attention to that entire cake I gorged on yesterday, I've totally stuck by my diet"


Shenanigans_626

>1st, go back and re-read those links. They're all independent and actually link to databases and not an 'infographic' I did. No, they aren't. They're literally all to the website this infographic came from. >ooohhh, so just a custom tailored data set that excludes the majority of the US gun Violence problem. Sure, totally not biased at all. These aren't studies on gun violence. They're not supposed to be. They're studies on *mass shootings*. >Why on earth would you exclude Gang-shootings when discussing mass shootings? Because they're a completely different thing. Same reason you wouldn't want war shootings included. >Why on earth exclude domestic violence (which would exclude Uvalde, btw, because it started with a domestic dispute where the shooter kills his grandmother)? No, it wouldn't, because the incident wasn't motivated by a domestic and the non-familial shootings were in a different location and 4+ fatal independent of that. >The only possible reason for narrowing the data-set like this is because the *actual* data doesn't fit your narrative. The only possible reason for expanding the data set beyond what any reasonable person would include *and* lying about the incidents on top of it is because the actual data doesn't fit your narrative.


Trudzilllla

>Because they're a completely different thing. Uh....people getting shot en-masse is the problem. The fact that one person who did it was a gang-banger and another was a white-supremacist isn't 2 separate problems: they both were able to inflict mass casualty on their victims. The only way you can come to the conclusion that "they are different things" is if you are desperately searching for something other the our ridiculously high rate of gun-ownership to blame. [It's the same reason you folks decide it's not important to focus on suicide rates either.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St_Abko0Jfs) >No, it wouldn't, because the incident wasn't motivated by a domestic and the non-familial shootings were in a different location and 4+ fatal independent of that. Your database doesn't actually include \*any\* of those stipulations, and it doesn't double-list a single other shooting because multiple locations were involved. But since it conveniently only looks at data from 8+ years ago we'll never know. The only people who can't understand that there is a GUN VIOLENCE problem in America are the ammo-sexuals causing it.


Shenanigans_626

>Uh....people getting shot en-masse is the problem. Okay, so we SHOULD include casualties of war? >The only way you can come to the conclusion that "they are different things" is if you are desperately searching for something other the our ridiculously high rate of gun-ownership to blame. YOU said that there were different types of mass shootings and when you implied Afghanistan should be excluded. I'm not searching for anything. The data clearly shows gun ownership isn't the problem. So does the negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. >Your database doesn't actually include *any* of those stipulations, and since it conveniently only looks at data from 8+ years ago we'll never know. Yes, it does, and it used those specific years in response to another study that was being widely publicized in order to demonstrate how dishonest that study was. >The only people who can't understand that there is a GUN VIOLENCE problem in America are the ammo-sexuals causing it. Oooooh, you're a lunatic. Have a great day.


Trudzilllla

You're being intentionally obtuse now. Gang-violence is a domestic problem, being in a warzone is not. > The data clearly shows gun ownership isn't the problem oh? Which country has lower gun ownership and higher gun-violence than we do? (Cue you listing a bunch of warzones, because gun-ownership necessarily increases gun violence in any peaceful country) The only way anyone could even pretend to believe this steaming pile of crap you call a worldview is by jerking around definitions like this. It's all a fun little game to you. Nothing will convince you this is a problem worth solving until its YOUR kids being shot at (because conservatives are clinically incapable of experiencing empathy)


Latter-Friendship298

Its funny how you americans are like "ITS NOT THAT BAD BECAUSE SOME OF THE SHOOTERS ARE GANG MEMBERS" πŸ˜…


eugenesbluegenes

Cool, a map showing population centers.


plsletmestayincanada

Sorry what? I can't speak for the entire country, but in California most of those dots fall within the central valley... which is far less populated than parts of the state like LA, SF, and SD...


eugenesbluegenes

Given the scale of the map, it's pretty hard to tell how many dots are basically on top of each other in LA. This is a pretty useless map.


plsletmestayincanada

Right... because it's at a country scale, not a city scale... that's how maps work That doesn't change the fact that of the dots that fall within California, a huge number of them are pretty darn far from what most would call it's population centers It's a map of mass shootings in 2022 at the scale of USA as a whole, and it shows that pretty well. Not liking what it shows doesn't make it useless lol


eugenesbluegenes

>a huge number of them are pretty darn far from what most would call it's population centers There are some 7 million people who live in the central valley. It's not so much that I "don't like" what the map is saying, I'm simply saying the map doesn't say much at all.


No-Cowman

Move to Nebraska it is then!


DupontPFAs

The states with fewer mass shootings are the ones with highest per capita suicides by gun. Correlated or just a statistical quirk of low population states?


metricwoodenruler

There's definitely a correlation between suicide rate and squareness of the state!


The_Raiden029

iF mOrE pEoPLe hAd GuNs... πŸ™„


random_observer_2011

Well, the phenomenon is alarming and seems to have increased \[a LOT\] since 2000 when one uses the definition most people find familiar- someone shoots up a school or entertainment venue and a lot of innocent people are killed or wounded. Usually we expect it to be non-political, since an act of political terrorism is just as alarming but somehow a more familiar concept. And most of those since 2000 have not been that. OTOH, a lot of people use the term to include gang shootouts, which are in no way the same thing to most of us. I quite literally only care about those when bystanders are hurt or killed, and even then that's not quite the same terrifying phenomenon that most of us understand by "mass shooting".


LeopardEmpress

😒


Fainting_GoatMilk

I’d be real interested to see the guns per capita in the states without any mass murders. Guarantee they are not in short supply. I think gun control is necessary, especially in states like Texas, but gun culture also plays a significant role as well and you can’t just ban that.


Apptubrutae

Louisiana represent!


chucksef

If anyone can point me to data from the other half of 2022 I would be very interested


backup225

Extremely misleading, bordering on dishonest


konstantinua00

reminder: https://xkcd.com/1138/


lordZ3d

Just go live in that blue area, problem solved


JackaI0pe

What? If you look at the map, the biggest dot clusters are in big cities, which are predominantly blue. This doesn't mean liberals are more gun violent, it's just another case of r/peopleliveincities.


banjonator1

I know it's not hip to "whoosh" anymore but c'mon man


JackaI0pe

No /s, you sure he's kidding?


banjonator1

One must assume; the alternative is depressing


JackaI0pe

oh wait, ok he means the water that's mb lmao