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.
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.
statistically, someone who goes outside, unless they go into a shitty part of town, where this kind of violence is more common, isn’t going to be exposed to it.
It’s like claiming that because we bombed japan in ww2, that the US population has radiation sickness.
The virctims in gang violence include innocent bystanders.
i mean it certainly can, but statistically, gang violence is going to be between gangs. Whether or that happens to be among specific racial, or ethnic groups is a different story entirely.
Of course there is also the question of gang violence hitting non violent members of the local community which may or may not be involved in that gang specifically, but that’s a different problem.
We all know exactly what you’re really saying here and you’ll deny and make excuses about it.
yeah, and it’s that specific communities, which tend to be correlative with racial/ethnic groups (you wouldn’t disagree with me on this one, judging by your comment acknowledging this fact) tend to have issues with discriminate, or indiscriminate violence between members of their community, for various reasons.
This is usually a phenomenon restricted to certain geographic areas though, it rarely makes it way outside of these areas, to places where “mass violence” is most commonly reported on. Because it’s not common.
quick edit: all i’m going to say, is that im not reading into the racial/ethnic problem here, you are. I’m just pointing out that gang violence tends to be isolated, concentrated, and easy to avoid.
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.
Everyone that studies crimes for a living, you know, people with PhDs, who publish peer reviewed studids on mass shootings?
Precise definitions vary somewhat, but basically, a mass shooting is any instance where 4+ people are injured or killed by gunfire, in a single, temporaly and geographically constrained event.
Gas station robbery gone wrong? 3 people injured, one dead, by gunfire?
That’s a mass shooting.
Because a mass of people… got shot.
A mass shooting related to gang activity… is a gang related mass shooting.
It is a subset of the category ‘mass shooting’, not a completely different thing.
You csn take that definition and apply it backward 40 , 60 years, and you will still see a massive, massive rise in the number of mass shootings in the last 20 years, number of people injured or killed by gunfire in mass shootings.
Zoomers are about 3x more likely to personally know someone who was present at the scene of, injured or killed in a mass shooting than Boomers.
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.
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.
That was someone else who said that, not me. You also missed the context part at the start of that sentence
statistically, someone who goes outside, unless they go into a shitty part of town, where this kind of violence is more common, isn’t going to be exposed to it.
It’s like claiming that because we bombed japan in ww2, that the US population has radiation sickness.
i mean it certainly can, but statistically, gang violence is going to be between gangs. Whether or that happens to be among specific racial, or ethnic groups is a different story entirely.
Of course there is also the question of gang violence hitting non violent members of the local community which may or may not be involved in that gang specifically, but that’s a different problem.
yeah, and it’s that specific communities, which tend to be correlative with racial/ethnic groups (you wouldn’t disagree with me on this one, judging by your comment acknowledging this fact) tend to have issues with discriminate, or indiscriminate violence between members of their community, for various reasons.
This is usually a phenomenon restricted to certain geographic areas though, it rarely makes it way outside of these areas, to places where “mass violence” is most commonly reported on. Because it’s not common.
quick edit: all i’m going to say, is that im not reading into the racial/ethnic problem here, you are. I’m just pointing out that gang violence tends to be isolated, concentrated, and easy to avoid.
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.
because it’s a statistical anomaly, it’s like including capital punishment in homicide numbers.
No, you’re wrong.
Everyone that studies crimes for a living, you know, people with PhDs, who publish peer reviewed studids on mass shootings?
Precise definitions vary somewhat, but basically, a mass shooting is any instance where 4+ people are injured or killed by gunfire, in a single, temporaly and geographically constrained event.
Gas station robbery gone wrong? 3 people injured, one dead, by gunfire?
That’s a mass shooting.
Because a mass of people… got shot.
A mass shooting related to gang activity… is a gang related mass shooting.
It is a subset of the category ‘mass shooting’, not a completely different thing.
You csn take that definition and apply it backward 40 , 60 years, and you will still see a massive, massive rise in the number of mass shootings in the last 20 years, number of people injured or killed by gunfire in mass shootings.
Zoomers are about 3x more likely to personally know someone who was present at the scene of, injured or killed in a mass shooting than Boomers.
For Millenials, its about 2x.