this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
525 points (94.9% liked)

News

22561 readers
4380 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago (21 children)

Intent matters because in a true mass shooting event, the mass shooting is the intent.

In an argument turned into a fight with multiple shooters, nobody went out that day looking to shoot people. It turned out that way, but that wasn't their goal when they left the house.

[–] rahmad@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (20 children)

Your explaining the difference but not explaining why it makes a difference.

To matters of gun regulation, of safety in public spaces, of trauma to the affected, of national reputation (pick any one, or all, or something else) why does the intent change anything?

I'll start off: To have the intention to mass-murder purely for the sake of mass murder could be worth isolating and studying because that is a specific and extreme psychological problem worth solving. However, not all mass killings (with intent, for your sake) will have that psychological trigger at root. A religious or racial extremist, for example, is different than a disaffected teenager.

In this circumstance, intent is interesting if one is interested in those other things (psychological issues in American youth, the spread of religious and racial extremism), but ultimately are secondary issues when it comes to measuring gun violence. A mass stabbing by a racial extremist, or a teenager blowing up their high school with fertilizer would still need to be measured.

You are complaining about this organization's yardstick, but I don't hear a compelling alternative from you for this specific measure. You are saying they should be measuring a totally different thing, which is arguably irrelevant to this measure.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (19 children)

It's like explaining the dufference between murder and manslaughter, it's the degree of the crime that counts.

If you accept that there is a difference between shooting people as a crime of passion, and shooting people by a systemic hunting of other human beings, there doesn't need to be a "but why is it different?"

It's different because one, anyone could fall victim to given enough alcohol and anger, and the other requires someone to be fundamentally broken as a human being.

[–] rahmad@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Are you saying that we should have Allowlists vs. Denylists for types of gun violence that are acceptable? This seems to be the fundamental premise upon which we disagree....

From my POV, intention is immaterial because there are no 'good' gun deaths, so splitting hairs has no values.

It sounds to me like you're saying if you go to a mall and have a mass shooting in a totally sober state, that's bad, but if you get hopped up on bath salts and then have a good old fashioned shotgun rampage, that's ok and we shouldn't count those ones....

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying that the phrase "mass shooting" should only be applied to a situation where the shooting is the reason for the conflict, not an argument, robbery, drug crime, or gang crime.

Further, I'd argue that conflating them all together so you can pump up statistics and make people scared denigrates all the victions of actual mass shootings like Uvalde and Sandy Hook.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

... Why are you saying and arguing those things, nobody cares about what you think about the way the statistics are counted when you can compare the data to other countries without guns and without any types of shooting events, mass or not.

Do you not understand what all of these different people are trying to explain to you?

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Because all the countries with strict gun laws that you all love to try and compare the USA with, also have strong social safety nets and are not as diverse as the USA...why don't you compare it with say Mexico or Brazil? Both have super strong gun laws but have no real safety nets and surprise....still have tons of firearm related deaths.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not as diverse as the eu?? Not as diverse as Canada? Wtf are you talking about

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Apparently you have never been to the EU... Canada while quite diverse, is mainly Europeans that immigrant to their. Some of my family came from the EU to Canada and then the USA....so it's not really fair to act like Canada is super diverse.

Why don't you answer my question before trying to deflect.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hit me with some sources first then we'll talk. Judging by this comment I'm not expecting much.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lol 10 year old, wapo, pay walled article. Let me help you out, Canada is as or more diverse than the US, and saying the eu has no diversity is fucking hilarious. Good try.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So your rebuttal is, nuh uh 10 year old article? Got it...next.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Super diverse....aka white people from the EU....like I said it was.

While small, the proportion of Canada's population who reported being Muslim, Hindu or Sikh has more than doubled in 20 years. From 2001 to 2021, these shares rose from 2.0% to 4.9% for Muslims, from 1.0% to 2.3% for Hindus and from 0.9% to 2.1% for Sikhs.

Racialized groups in Canada are all experiencing growth. In 2021, South Asian (7.1%), Chinese (4.7%) and Black (4.3%) people together represented 16.1% of Canada's total population.

Waiting for that EU one...still...dumb dumb

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The only way to be diverse in your eyes is to be Muslim hindu or sikh?

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Congrats on cherry picking what you want to think... reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah you right. America is special, nothing anyone can do, enjoy your piles of dead children.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

O you're not even from here lol what a tool.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

Exactly, fuck them dead kids.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, and all these different people haven't said a single thing that counters what I'm saying, telling, isn't it?

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

We've all countered it. Very telling indeed.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)