https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/05/mass-shootings-record-year
Country has had 38 mass shootings – in which at least 203 people have died – so far this year, passing previous high of 36
Yeah, counting only fatal shootings as "mass shootings" is strange. A gunshot wound can easily be a life-altering injury, and this should be reflected in the statistics.
Yeah, this is a horseshit article. They chose to define a mass shooting as an incident where 4 or more people are killed (excluding the shooter) rather than where 4 or more people are shot as they do in your gunviolencearchive.org link. Gunviolencearchive.org current;y has 25 incidents per page and is now onto page 26! It lists 631 mass shootings this year! This is day 338 of 2023 so that is 1.9 mass shootings per day! And it's not even an exhaustive list. It doesn't yet include, for example, the two mass killings listed in OP's article.
I think that's the definition of a serial killer. They just chose to incorrectly adopt it for mass shooting.
Serial killer is several killings in a row with a change of venue. Mass murder is 4 or more in one place. I’ve actually taken a class on this.
What if all serial killings are made on the same venue, but at different times? Is it a mass serial killing?
Not a shock knowing the shootings in USA. No politician wants to change these gun issues so this will continue.
Excuse me, NO politician? Not Lucy McBath (D-Ga) who literally ran on gun control to flip her seat after her 17 yo son was shot to death by a white man over a noise complaint? Not "yes I will take your guns" Beto ORourke? Not literally-survived-being-shot -in-the-face Gabby Giffords?
You completely undermine these anti-gun politicians & the work they do when you deny they even exist.
No politician wants to change these gun issues so this will continue.
Because they know that to try would be political suicide. So much of the US population fetishizes gun ownership and makes it a corner stone of their personality that it is basically impossible to change.
Even if a law was passed it would be repealed as soon as a new party was in power or nullified by the supreme court due to the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment needs to change and that is now impossible.
The US founding fathers recognised that the constitution would need to be constantly updated as times changed but it has become a holy document and religious text for the cult of USA: The Greatest Country on Earth!!!.
Multiple other countries have reached the point with their own mass shootings and said enough is enough and restricted firearms. But any outside example is rejected in the USA because the USA is different because (insert trite reason).
Even if a law was passed it would be repealed as soon as a new party was in power
Please stop repeating that. In every democracy in the world the governing parties change every couple of years and they do not simply repeal all the laws passed by the previous government. This is just a stupid excuse used by US parties no to do anything. Why people believe it is beyond me.
2nd amendment is fine, it's the first half of it that's conveniently ignored and no one seems to care.
I don't think it's even because of that. About 70% of Americans support measures like psychiatric evaluations or waiting periods, maybe even more. NRA is also not that powerful as a lobbyist, most politicians would be fine without it's support. The only issue is that it would require some actual work and they wouldn't gain anything from it and American politicians simply aren't used to doing anything useful anymore.
There were. Last example I can think of was Obamacare. It was far from true reform but it did help a lot of people. Before that politicians did introduce social security, a lot of civil rights, some environmental policies and so on. It's not all the laws you have today were introduces 200 years ago. And if you mean gun laws specifically I simply think it wasn't such a big issue back then. It's almost like gun issue in US started growing as politics got taken over by corporations and the general decline began.
BS, there are plenty of federal politicians who promote gun control, and there are even more state politicians who support it, as evidenced by the 3 states (CO, WA, MD) who passed gun control measures in 2023 alone .
When you say "no one's doing this & never will", you're completely undermine the people who literally are doing this right now.
Will, you see they need their guns and they can't possibly have any coherent gun laws because of an old piece of paper written hundreds of years ago. It all makes perfect sense and isn't in any way stupid at all.
The law was made back when war was conducted by everyone standing in a field and shooting in the approximate direction of the opposing force, and eventually hitting someone. Just maybe the constitution is out of date now? Just a radical thought.
If that were true, there would be no reason for Iran not to have nuclear weapons right.
It's people who kill after all. The weapons have nothing to do with it.
Workd record holder for another year.
Is there a record for how many consecutive years a country had held this record?
I mean... when no one else is competing, how hard is it to keep breaking your own records?
Freedom isn't free. You want to live with your face under a boot that's fine. You don't get to choose for the rest of us.
Right, but. In the article they state
"A series of murders over the weekend have propelled the United States to a grisly new record: the most recorded mass shootings in a year"
Including the stabbing which they then refer to as a mass killing. I'm not arguing the point of the article. Its just misleading.
Two attacks on Sunday occurring within a couple of hours of each other in Texas and Washington state were the year’s 37th and 38th mass shootings.
The stabbing is separate and unrelated.
We've had more than 38 in my county alone. But that's why they conflate mass shooting and mass killing.
It’s slightly confusing but is explained in the article that all mass shooting are mass killings but not all mass killings are shootings, which of course makes sense.
Nope, there are 38 mass shootings which are a record for mass shootings. Additionally the guardian mentions mass stabbings, usually a pro-gun argument.
The WP article linked in the Guardian article mentions 38 mass shootings and has no reference to stabbings. In the infographic for every incident it mentions a shooter specifically, not a perpetrator or attacker.
Your comment is misleading, not the article.
Why would I be talking about the washington post article? Im talking about the stabbing mentioned in the article of this thread.
Because it's linked as a source in the article when the shootings are mentioned.
But indeed it is clear even from just the Guardian article that the 37th and 38th mass shootings of this year broke the record of 36 mass shootings. All this before any stabbing or overall mass killing is mentioned.
None of the articles are misleading, your comments are, I guess purposely.
No, it's listed in the article as a mass killing, not shooting.
Another attack occurred on Sunday in New York City, when a 38-year-old man stabbed four of his relatives – including two children – as well as another woman and two police officers before they shot him. That was the country’s 41st mass killing of 2023