• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      It matters because the Gun Violence Archive and the uncritical mass media are inflating the statistic to make people scared so they can push an agenda

      Bullshit. You’re attacking it because it’s counter to your agenda.

      Republicans, right-wing media, the gun lobby and the pro-gun community routinely fearmonger as a way to boost their own profits and power.

      Not only do you not care when they do it, you’ve enthusiastically put yourself and your own family in more danger because of it.

      You’re hopelessly compromised and your thoughts about how gun violence statistics are about as trustworthy as a cops views on police brutality statistics.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          My agenda is “words mean things”

          If that was actually your agenda, this wouldn’t be your position. You want to lower the statistic using semantics and as an added bonus, take away the vocabulary needed to discuss a huge percentage of gun violence.

          The difference is, in scenario #1, nobody went to the party intending to shoot anyone. You can’t say the same for scenario #2.

          5 people were shot. Intentional vs accidental, premeditated vs impulse, none of that changes the fact that 5 people were shot and the event was a mass shooting.

          Even in your own example that you made as contrived as you needed, 3 innocent people were still shot and swept under the rug.

          The organizations you’re rallying against are completely open about their definitions, making them far more honest than you’re being.

          I’m sorry if that hurts your guns feelings.

            • prole
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              You know what would be a pretty interesting way to look at this would be?

              Lets take every modern nation in the world (we can bicker about what “modern” means later), and lets create a database similar to the one you’re taking issue with for each of those nations.

              We can be just as uncharitable (or is it charitable?) in our definition of “mass shooting”… The exact issue you’re having here right? You think that these statistics unfairly show the US in a negative light.

              Well how about we take a look, by that same criteria, how many “mass shootings” these other nations have. Hell, we can even do it per-capita.

              How do you think that would look?