Unrelenting bloodshed across the U.S. this year has led to the grimmest of milestones: The deadliest six months of mass killings recorded since at least 2006.
From Jan. 1 to June 30, the nation endured 28 mass killings, all but one of which involved guns. The death toll rose just about every week.
Is it bad my initial reaction was, “That’s it?” This figure sounds really low when compared to a “mass shooting” which has similar criteria (4 victims shot, injured or killed), but the distinction is whether or not those shot died.
I’m pretty tired of this topic. Especially when it’s always framed as a mental health issue. Well, what about the mental health of everyone else aside from the shooters?? Are we just supposed to sit around and pretend like everything’s fine?
Our “leaders” aren’t even doing the basics like pushing for greater restrictions on purchasing involving background checks. In half the country it’s possible to buy a gun without any form of background check, then carry it around without any kind of license; that’s obviously not working!
Gun industry heavily relies on mentally ill people and their paranoid delusions to fuel their profits. They are the people who are buying dozens and dozens of guns.
"for example, a report published in 2017 by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. The authors estimate that of the 265 million privately owned firearms in the US, about half are owned by 3% of the US adult population. And while about half of gun owners own one or two guns, 8% of gun owners own 10 or more – a figure that amounts to about 40% of the total US gun stock, according to the report."
Normal mentally well gun owners own own like 1-3 weapons, because why would any sane person need more than that? They aren't making money off your average joe who buys a handgun/shotgun. They are making it off the nutbags who own 20 different combat rifles and all the tacticool accessories so they can cosplay on the weekends as soldiers and 'train' who sit around on the internet bragging about how 'prepared' they are for some doomsday scenario.
To my knowledge only one political advocacy group uses that definition. Prior to this group being founded in the last several years, the definition has been four or more killed in a shooting typically unrelated to any other crime. You know incidents like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, or Las Vegas. You won't really see any legitimate sources use that definition like the Congressional Research service or most academics.
The sad thing is that the social issues causing these won't solved for another generation AND THAT'S IF THEY START BEING ADDRESSED TODAY WITH PROPER REFORMS to healthcare, education and housing etc
I haven't heard of most of these incidents? Are these from street gangs shooting each other and bystanders or are they what typically dominates the news in the US like Sandy Hook? I feel like if it was the latter these would have had coverage.
What coverage? A local news site covers, maybe a small article in a national news site so they can get clicks saying a mass shooting happened. But it drops off the radar almost immediately precisely because it isn't a mass shooting. Uvalde had coverage for days and the typical gun politics debate in the national politics with speculation on whether or not it would impact elections in Texas. None of these other incidents that are being counted remotely have that kind of focus because they aren't the same kind of phenomena and not because of a lack of energy.
I ceased believing this was a civil culture years ago. We're an embarrassment. Other country's citizens kill each other for sport. We kill each other for no reason.
yeah all those mass shootings conducted by people with the occupation of "criminal". Driving everywhere on the wrong side of the road, stealing everything, punching babies. Mowing down school kids was just on their typical criminal docket for the day. If it's illegal, they're gonna do it, cus they're immune to laws.