this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
710 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5677 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

TheGuardian.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pea666@feddit.nl 74 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Some, such as the Gun Violence Archive, include events in which multiple people are shot regardless of number of deaths, and so report much higher figures.

This carries a fun implication: let’s deflate the number of mass shooting by only including the deaths and not how many people are actually shot (and perhaps saved by emergency room personnel).

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 54 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It also misses the damage done by witnessing that violence and being shot at and losing loved ones to gun violence.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How do you plan on quantifying that?

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 2 points 11 months ago

You don't, most people won't get the mental health care service they need after that type of event and the harm just gets ingrained in those communities.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 41 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It also ignores any lingering effects the survivors might suffer, whether physically or mentally. Just because you're alive doesn't mean you are whole.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Or economically, given the absurd costs of medical attention in the USA.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It also encourages confusion that each mass shooting is someone trying to kill as many people as possible in a public place, when that overwhelmingly isn't actually true.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The new definition is mostly gang violence now, but that's not what any of us think of when we see or hear "mass shooting".

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's a dog whistle for justifying the gun violence as only being between black people and hispanics, as if that makes it okay.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

I mean it seems like a change to inflate the numbers, but shifting it to minorities could prolly keep the right quiet.

[–] chris@lemm.ee 22 points 11 months ago

That last part is important, because our emergency responders have gotten very good at saving lives (sadly, they've had to). People will point to deaths as the only relevant stat--and it's amazing that isn't enough for some people--but it's a huge burden and cost for healthcare.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Mass shooting, not mass killing. I'd even want to know about instances of multiple, unrelated targets. If we get a string of shooters with terrible aim and nobody is actually hurt I don't consider that an improvement of our epidemic.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 12 points 11 months ago

I can already hear the wing conspiracy theories about how liberal doctors are letting mass shooting victims die in order to bolster the numbers.

Kind of like the conspiracies they’d throw around about the numbers of cases and deaths related to Covid.