▲ | insurancesucks 5 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's a dishonest bar. The vast majority of us picture a deranged lunatic indiscriminately shooting innocent people. Gang related incidents are something entirely different. The definition should not obscure the two (but it would be politically inconvenient to separate them) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | abustamam 5 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The vast majority of us picture a deranged lunatic indiscriminately shooting innocent people Just because we picture one thing when we hear a term doesn't change the agreed upon definition of the term. If the definition of "mass shooting" were a single person, 600 is still way too many to have in a year. Other developed countries have fewer than 600 gun-related deaths total per year. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/31/1209683... The fact that upping the bar to 4 per incident and still gets us 600 is frankly shameful. > it would be politically inconvenient to separate them Why? No sane person in the United States "likes" gun violence. I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement "600 incidents of a firearm killing 4 or more people is too many incidents." The question that divides people is how we ought to control it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|