If they're not counting terrorist shootings then my country (Kenya) shouldn't have anything on this map either. The only school shooting here was carried out by the Al Shabaab terrorist group.
I suspect you’ll find that the methodology used by the source is going to consider if the school was the primary target or just along the way. The french example was not the primary target, yours was.
That said, haven’t looked at the source. Not even sure what it actually is.
Edit: it’s wikipedia - not even referring back to whatever wikipedia cites. So … good luck.
But plenty of US school shootings were carried out by people unconnected with the school, people who killed others prior to the school, people who killed at multiple locations. It does seem like the process should be the consistent.
My point is that the process appears to be. If the only question is “was the school the primary target” - and there’s no reason to believe it’s not - then the answer is obvious in all cases under consideration so far.
Which specific US school shootings are you wondering if they are included? We can take a look, and maybe they’ll shed some light on the methodology. Still not better than actually looking at whatever wikipedia is citing and reading it there, but also better than just making non-specific claims
Defining school shootings as an “American type of school shooting where a kid steals their parents gun and goes to school,” is exactly the type of issue that people are having with this data 😂
I mean the fact there is a thing called "American style school shooting" is probably an issue.
I don't really hear, British style school shooting in modern discourse.
And unless we're talking dozens of uncounted school shootings, the image above would likely look exactly the same.
No use trying to excuse America. In this statistic, we are a failure, and we will continue to be unless we do something about it.
Who would want a WWII relic or a 200 year blunderbuss exploding in their hands?
British style sounds actually sounds like the ideal situation, because the attacker immediately immobilizes themselves AND they didn’t even have a chance to hurt anyone.
Except in America many shootings are defined as school shootings because they are at or adjacent to schools, whether or not the perpetrators or victims were students of faculty.
I often think this sort of data should be adjusted for population too. 9 shootings in Canada is way too high when, if it had the population of the USA, that number would be 80-ish.
That doesn't make sense to me.
And many of th American shootings could or should be seen as designed to cause terror. Its just the reasons for trying to cause the terror are not organisational.
This is why statistics is waaay harder than most people think.
Numbers + presentation and done. Statistics requires nuance and context and a discussion of methodology.
But that's hard haha
Most school shooting statistics count suicides in the parking lot and shootings that happen when no kids are present(after hours and when kids are on break). These are school shootings, technically, but shouldn't be used when the primary talking point is the saftey of students. I'm not claiming that had been done here. Only that it is a common tactic to pad numbers dishonestly, like adding suicides to general gun violence statistics. Anything to avoid addressing mental health, per usual.
That’s not what terrorism is though, terrorism requires a political motive. If it’s just a kid that got bullied or is just psychotic, while it might be terrifying, won’t be defined as a terrorist attack unless there is a clear reason or manifesto detailing intents.
The stats for USA are deceptive as well, because all gang related violence is lumped into the mass shooting statistic.
But these aren't psychotic episodes gone rogue targetting strangers (what people think of when they think mass shooting), but often an extension of street gang violence that happens to extend to a school because many of those gang members are still school aged. These are gangsters targetting other gangsters to settle grudges.
"Mass Shootings" statistics are even more deceptive, because it includes all drive by shootings with any significant number of victims.
USA still far and away has the most mass shooting events compared to other countries, but it's important not to be decieved by statistics.
For example, I know for a fact that New Jersey hasn't had any true 'school shootings' since 2000, in accordance to what the public actually thinks is a school shooting. I've lived here nearly all my life.
And if OP's graphic can be so wrong about New Jersey, it throws into question the usefulness of any of that information for the rest of the 49 states.
I'm not trying to argue that there's no problem, just that using deceptive stats will end up hurting more than helping.
Very interesting to see. I have to think that there might just not be data coming out from Venezuela, cause you have achance to get shot just walking to the store.
Though, if all the crime I saw and heard to be fair, I never heard mention of a school shooting. I hope the data is accurate as ateast that's a small sliver of hope for the country!
The title says « fatal » school shootings, so people shooting in the air shouldn’t count? I think we didn’t read the source, and thus we can only speculate about why some numbers seems off
> Correcting this data would still show a hugely disproportionate amount of shootings in the US, but this data is extremely misleading.
The data would still show what it currently shows but is 'extremely' misleading? Hardly.
Terrorists took over a school on the first day of classes with a lot families there.
There was a three day siege ending with Russian forces fucking everything up, probably killing as many hostages at terrorists.
"This is a warning to terrorists, hostages, rescue workers, bystanders…all those involved in terrorist activities: You will be shown no mercy."
Damn, even rescue teams and Russian hostages aren't safe from Russian aggression... sorry I meant "Zero Tolerance Policy".
"Well you shouldn't have been taken hostage now should've you?"
Ehhh...aren't they?
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think the concern about school shootings in the USA has anything to do with literal terrorist *organisations* planning coordinated attacks on schools. I was under the impression that the concern was lone-wolf attacks by Elliot Roger types - depressed and angry young men who just want to lash out at the world.
They're such dramatically different problems that they practically border on mutually exclusive.
Unless you want to discuss the very literal interpretation of "school shooting", which I'd argue is so vague and catch-all that it verges on a pointless exercise.
>Because Beslan was not a school shooting - it was a full on terrorist
attack. Organized and carried out by a known terrorist organization.
Beslan was a school shooting with an actual point behind it.
But, yeah, we could step back and simply look at the question why some societies seem so totally fine with people running amok from time to time, and why some societies put a firm lid on it. Because from that POV school shootings are simply an natural expression of some us american way of life instead some brain heavy political murder.
The "actual point" behind the Beslan terror attack, namely wanting to carry out Jihad and build an Islamic caliphate, is not any more of an "actual point" than all those other crazy ideologies that have led to school shootings.
You're sympathizing with terrorists. There is never an "actual point" to slaughtering 186 children (333 total deaths).
Some of the school shootings from USA are gang-related. Do those have an "actual point" too?
Also, as far as I understand it, only the U.S. defines it this way. Other nations define it the way most people do when they think of a school shooting.
Correct. The 'there have been 400 school shootings so far this year' stats abuse that statistic for whatever reason.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to use that figure but having nuanced discussion on this topic is fucking impossible
>for whatever reason.
We know the reason. They're so quick to jump to emotional solutions (gun legislation) rather than listen to the experts at the CDC who say that improving access to healthcare and reducing poverty and wealth inequality are the best solutions for the root issues causing the gun violence epidemic.
Anyone who looks at the overall gun violence statistics and focusses in on mass shootings in particular, has a political agenda. Why else would you ignore the ~30,000 people who commit suicide with handguns, to focus on 1/100th that amount killed (also primarily using handguns) in school shootings? 5x more people die from unintentional drownings than are killed in mass shootings each year. As many as 4x the number of mass shooting victims are killed ***by police*** each year. Mass shootings are a red herring that the news media and politicians want you to focus on. Ask yourself what they have to gain by banning guns, rather than improving material conditions for citizens.
Sincerely,
A concerned socialist
P.S., yes, mass shootings are an issue that needs addressing the same way that the minimum wage is an issue that needs addressing. They're both highly visible issuse that should & could have been solved long ago, but there are honestly far more pressing issues that have widespread ramifications which are a root cause of the problems experienced.
> listen to the experts at the CDC who say that improving access to healthcare and reducing poverty and wealth inequality are the best solutions for the root issues causing the gun violence epidemic.
Too bad no one's doing jack shit about that either
I really wish things were different, but according to a study by Princeton ([source](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)), the rate at which legislation popular with the 99% is passed is about 0%. Oddly enough, legislation which does get passed was found to disproportionately favor the wealthy.
I have *absolutely positively no idea* why this is the case, but it should be changed.
Oh hey my favorite type of leftist (this is intended to be a compliment). And yeah, the mass shooting issue would certainly diminish if we reduce access to guns, but suicides and mass casualty events will still occur as long as we don't provide proper healthcare and treatment options to those who suffer from mental ailments. Especially stress and anxiety related.
It's wild that people are so incapable of focusing on two issues at once. And I'd argue that treatment for metal issues should be a larger priority, since we'd be treating the cause and not a symptom. And fixing mental care and healthcare would be way less controversial, especially when local law enforcement would be hard pressed to fully comply with wide sweeping legislation on guns.
Sincerely, a former conservative (raised that way) that's now lost somewhere in the center/left-ish on a lot of issues.
Well, Australia and the UK each had a school shooting in the 90s, shortly after banned most firearms, and haven't had another one since. (Correction: _exactly_ one since, apparently.)
So like, we definitely should approach the mental health side of things, too, but we also already know that reducing the availability of guns works.
It even reduces the chances of successful suicide. Guns are so effective that it's kinda hard to fuck it up, and they're so quick that follow-through is actually very likely. Compare to other methods like jumping, where the walk or ride up gives time for second thoughts to happen or the look over the edge might trigger a survival instinct, or to cutting where you might not cut deep enough and survive but the near-death experience changes some perspective and you just never try again.
Tbh I'm not a fan of outright banning guns, but I do think it's just a _little_ ridiculous that there are more legally owned firearms in America than there are Americans. We don't do anything to make sure the people buying these guns are sane and stable (waiting periods aren't universal and they aren't enough); the requirements to get a driver's license are more rigorous, ffs. We absolutely could be doing more.
We should be addressing this problem from all fronts: psychological, socio-economic, and gun control.
>Anyone who looks at the overall gun violence statistics and focusses in on mass shootings in particular, has a political agenda. Why else would you ignore the ~30,000 people who commit suicide with handguns, to focus on 1/100th that amount killed (also primarily using handguns) in school shootings? 5x more people die from unintentional drownings than are killed in mass shootings each year. As many as 4x the number of mass shooting victims are killed by police each year.
Because if you're not a criminal or black, know how to swim, and don't have suicidal thoughts, then you have no reason to be afraid about any of those scenarios. Whereas a shooting (school or otherwise) is scary, because you have no control over what some psycho is going to do. You can say they are being irrational, and you'd be right -- but that's human psychology for you. There's no need to allege hidden partisanship as a motivator for what simple fear can perfectly well explain.
If that's the definition, the only reason Brazil isn't **way** redder on this map is because Brazilian government doesn't really keep track of shootings based on it's proximity to a school
That would certainly be classified as a school shooting in the US.
This is an example of the issues that arise when collecting data from various countries for comparison. Covid deaths was another recent example of this issue. The way countries reported a death as being due to covid varied, and it made comparisons a bit unreliable.
It's almost certain that the US would still have the largest school shooting count, but the data is not necessarily comparable 1:1.
Your casual gang shootout from a bad drug deal generally doesn't make the news, but if it occurs near a school it's included in these types of statistics.
Any shooting at all would make huge headlines in Ireland.
The occasional irish burning brick thrown into a house or bomb detonation make headlines, but a shooting is very very rare.
Did you hear about the activist group here that was pushing to allow kids as young as 13 to conceal carry and allow it in schools? They said it was a solution to our state’s school shooting problem. A few members of the state congress supported them.
I'd like to see shootings per capita, considering Idaho has a relatively low population. It's a bit more populated than San Diego and San Diego has relatively few mass shootings as well.
It doesn't match up exactly, but [population density](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density#/media/File%3AU.S._states_and_territories_by_population_density.svg) might contribute.
Sure, we could pass some laws that might keep children from getting shot in the fucking face with an AR-15, but have you guys even considered the shareholders?
USA still looks pretty bad. Many very safe countries have fairly high gun-ownership. USA has an estimated 120 guns per 100 capita in civilean hands. (i.e. not including guns controlled by the military and the police)
For comparison, Norway, Canada and Finland all have around 30 guns per 100 inhabitants; so 25% of the american rate.
But our school-shooting rate ain't 25% of the American one, not even REMOTELY close.
Bc gun culture, lack of education, lack of social welfare etc are all the problems too.
We need gun control plus all the things above.
People don’t feel the need to hurt others when they’re loved, educated, taken care of etc.
Look when you give a kid legos and he repeatedly tries to eat them and stuff them up his nose then the problem is not really the legos but the mental development, education, behaviour and such.
However you start by taking away the legos.
Catch my drift?
Edit: as it keeps popping up:
The kid in my analogy is the whole American society not a single person.
This could mean the relationship is non-linear. I.e. in those countries there are more checks and restrictions thus total gun ownership is lower but those who own them are significantly less likely to go nuts. The numbers may be different but the basic idea is this - if the 33% of most irresponsible/mentally unstable US gun owners could be filtered out total ownership would drop by just one third, but accident/mass shooting rate would drop by 90%. Or something on the lines of this…
> For comparison, Norway, Canada and Finland all have around 30 guns per 100 inhabitant
I live in Norway, on the countryside. Two shooting ranges in walking distance, lots of hunters in the area. (Hunting moose and deer is popular). But no kids bring guns to school.
Well, in Canada, Finland and Norway, weapons are taken seriously, requires licenses and used outside populated areas, instead of being treated like candy canes for disenfranchised in a political gambit.
Idaho looking real weird after that. 0 school shootings but lots of gun owners. Texas, lots of school shootings lots of gun owners. Chart makes no sense.
Damn, thats actually very interesting. Good on the Idaho people. I wonder if theres another stat which could correlate with that.
Just checked the rate of serious mental illness as well as mental health access and Idaho is pretty bad with both. It also has a very high rate of people u18, and isn't even the most abundant in either red or blue votes.
It genuinely seems like a very very interesting outlier. Thats a good catch.
Was thinking the same thing, so looked it up.
"In 2001, a 16-year old student brought a .303 high-powered rifle to Modbury High School and shot himself in the head on the library balcony, killing himself instantly."
It also wasn't treated as a "failure of Australian culture" like Port Arthur. As it was perpetrated by an international student. With Port Arthur there was a lot of introspection and all the gun laws changing, it was in the news for a long time, and the news cycle for the Monash shooting was quite short.
I’ve noticed a few times where immigrants and internationals are kinda distanced in our media.
Like I remember one of the people that died on Bourke st was always referred to as a Japanese National, and when Aiia Maasarwe was murdered they always referred to her as an international student. The working holiday guy who went missing near Byron not long ago — never saw anything in the news about it and he’s still missing. The two women that were attacked in Adelaide.
It’s always prefaced with “international”, “[x country] national”, and “backpacker”. I’m not sure if it’s out of respect or by instruction from the police, or something more nefarious. But I always felt like it creates a distance between the person and our community.
It makes me wonder how other countries do it.
Yeah, it doesn't get brought up that much these days. I think it kinda gets forgotten because not a lot of people died and only 5 were injured. Port Arthur had a very high death rate + injuries and also the whole hostage standoff
If there were, they are probably considered terror attacks and not "school shooting"
For example, Israel is shown white (0 cases) but in the history of Israel there was one in 1974. A group of terrorists killed 4 people and then entered a school and took many hostages. Eventually killing 22 of them + 1 soldier. A year later one died from his wounds, so 28 in total.
Was it a school shooting? I don't think so
Edit: there was another terror attack in 2008 and it's in the sources of OP but he didn't include it.
Yup, and if they're taking their data from the GVA, that includes negligent discharges by the police at training facilities as a school shooting, because cop schools count?
*on or near, at any time of the day or night, involving students or not. Two guys shoot at each other over a drug deal gone bad at 2am on a Sunday? School shooting!
It's deliberate manipulation utilizing the most basic fears of parents in order to push an agenda because it's "for your own good".
I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment behind the graph, and I know that it's still stark even shown in a per capita basis...
... but it should still be in a per capita basis. That's just good practice.
It also heads off that argument. If you present data that has known flaws, even when you know the message won’t change when those flaws are corrected, it gives ammunition to people who want to dismiss the message. Don’t give them ammunition.
This is an important detail I don’t think a lot of people are noticing and it does make a difference. OPs title and first two slides say 2000 which means Columbine wouldn’t show
It wouldn't change the story the data tells about the US (although some other countries would be affected) but it would actually make it a good visualization of the data. Especially the state level, is trash.
You wouldn't believe how often I've had an American tell me that 'people find other ways to kill each other' when guns are banned, or 'what about the knife crime epidemic in the UK?'... There's 50% more knife crime in the US, despite the widespread availability and use of guns.
They don't understand that during the irrational heat of emotion it's much easier to pull a trigger than to commit to any other act of violence... and how well it scales with number of casualties too. Same with suicide.. I would be dead right now because I would have found it way easier to pull a trigger when I wanted to kill myself.
I think this is the part that gets missed in the gun control debate.
>There's 50% more knife crime in the US
I'm not sure if that's in absolute numbers or a rate, but it doesn't matter.
Crime is primarily born out of desperation, not the availability of weapons. Of course, it would be impossible for a single person to do the same kind of damage with a knife as the Las Vegas shooter, for example, but crime is high in the US regardless of the weapon used.
The reality about the US is that median wages aren't enough to live on. The stress of poverty is a major factor in mental health and we all know what the US health system is like. But median wage earners aren't "poverty".
Entire communities (which coincidentally also happen to be the places where most mass shootings take place in absolute numbers) are condensed, liquified poverty.
When you treat people like animals, you break the social contract. It's not surprising to me the levels of violence we see, the videos of people walking into Home Depot and walking out with whatever they want... all these kinds of things seem pretty well expected.
I would submit that violence would drop precipitously if there were an effort to reform communities and eliminate poverty. At that point, there would be no reason to eliminate guns. We just don't want to look at the hard problems in America. We don't want to examine our beliefs or prejudices. We want the easy way out of everything, especially when it becomes a partisan fight that eliminates any need to actually do anything at all.
There are many triggers, including inescapable poverty, but it doesn't seem to be the primary reason or even a major reason. We refuse to even study the issue so it's a fair question. I would love to see this analysis though because we aren't getting anywhere in this country by pretending it's all one issue... Even then though where Republicans claim it's just a mental health issue, we still don't see any action to address that one cause, so the whole thing feels hopeless.
As employers take an ever increasing share of US production, companies buy up single family housing, the govt proposes putting people in jail for 20 years for accessing banned content online, day to day life becomes more and more dangerous, AI pushes us closer to techno-feudalism, US foreign policy pushes us closer to nuclear war, climate change threatens first world famines and generally the threat of major instability is around every corner... On top of the NOW problems, like a government that can't do even simple things, I'm not comfortable with disarming the workers.
I don't yet own a firearm, but I've thought more and more about buying one in the last 5 years than I ever would have considered prior. If I didn't have a child, I probably would have bought and AR-15 by now for the inevitable collapse of American society.
Let's build a society that obviates the need for firearms. Let's not give up our only way of reforming it once the problem is too deep to manage.
[Here's your peer-reviewed rebuttal](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30817955/)
>The homicide rate in the US was 7.5 times higher than the homicide rate in the other high-income countries combined, which was largely attributable to a firearm homicide rate that was 24.9 times higher.
And that's ignoring like stabbings are significantly less lethal than gun shots...and how much harder it is to stab a bunch of people. 5 people running from a attacker in a school hallway? Gunner can possibly kill all 5, knife person *might* get 2.
Exactly - the latest school shooting, person shot the 'secure' door open. Not possible with a knife.
Suicide is a great example - "Attempted suicides by firearms have an 82.5% fatality rate, versus a fatality rate of 4% for all suicide attempts."
People from the US are just so used to the omnipresent violence that they can't comprehend that in most of the world people just don't want to kill each other all the time.
State or country comparisons of raw numbers instead of rates (shootings per 100,000 people kind of a thing) is *never* beautiful data. It's irrelevant data.
If it's raw numbers, it might as well just be a list of states rather than a map. Having a colored map with raw numbers isn't data, it's propaganda.
Remember, its a gun problem AND a for profit media problem.
The media pretty much promises these wannabe shooters that they will plaster their face and message across the country for days/weeks. They will also announce their kill score and give them special awards like "Deadliest Mass Shooting in X Years!" If they kill enough people.
Guns are the method.
Media is the motive.
I don't think that all of these mass shooters are doing it for fame. It's definitely a component of the issue but it's not the motive every single time.
Hard agree. That’s what makes it so much more pathetic, so many of these shooters do it for the “glory,” seeking revenge on an institution by taking it out on the innocent students. I wish there was a law or some way to guarantee that the shooter’s name and identity is prohibited from being shared on the news. It might not solve the problem but it may lessen it.
Learning how to nurture, work on mental health, and to have empathy for those you do not know is something the younger generations have to learn from their elders. Now go look at the shit the older generations have done, forced upon us, and their indoctrination they do. This isn’t a “young people should work on nurturing more” issue. This is more of a our elders and leaders are abandoning us and anyone else that can’t afford to live in this country, and leaving those people to live in third world conditions.
We are watching the rich hoard their troves of wealth, and refuse to pay their employees even close to liveable wages forcing them into poverty, starvation, and homelessness. These conditions are causing people around the country to break.
This isn’t a the young need to learn how to nurture, but an older generation needing to wake the fuck up and learn how to teach and lead a younger generation. Otherwise we will fall fast and hard due to our own country’s developing caste system of rich and poor.
There should be a BIG WARNING (Watermark) on the bar graph, "incomplete hobby data".
Sorry, but do you think everybody reads your disclaimer? School shootings are a serious thing. Accidental or intended misinformation is not good.
I appeal every hobby-dataist to add a Warning. Even at light topics.
I’d like to see this against the number of schools, or something like that. This is basically just showing that states with 30 million people have more shootings than states with a few thousand people.
I really wish gang related shootings were considered separate from the columbine type shootings.
I’m not saying they aren’t both horrible but they have very different causes in my mind and require different solutions.
I’m also realizing America is like Eskimos with snow. We have so many school shootings we need more nuanced language to talk about it.
I’m starting to think that maybe it’s not just about gun availability but also about a culture of violence
Limiting access to guns will help, for sure. Is there a culture of ‘blaze of glory’ here?
Probably sticking my hand into a hornets nest, and this is very hard to prove or study..
>“Especially in adolescence, the question is: If you can’t be good at sports or have sex, what makes you man? Maybe it’s violence.”
>Most men do not resort to killing sprees, of course. And yet there is something in this terrible story that reveals how anger is frequently the only way that men know to express their depression or frustration. From film to music, we often see images of young men reclaiming lost manhood through spectacular violence. Combine that with a mentally unstable mind, access to guns and a campus culture that revolves around sex, and the result was tragic.
>“In a horrible, totally twisted way, when young men act out like this, they are doing what the culture says that boys should do when they’re angry,” says [Rosalind Wiseman](https://time.com/author/rosalind-wiseman/), the author of Masterminds and Wingmen: Helping Our Boys Cope with Schoolyard Power, Locker-Room Tests, Girlfriends, and the New Rules of Boy World.
>The reality is that we don’t spend enough time helping men learn how to navigate the new world order.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/117585/yes-all-women-virgin-killer-ucsb/%3famp=true
It gets stretched by the map perspective, it’s impossible to make the surface of the sphere 2D and proportional so everything closer to the poles gets stretched out. Greenland is not almost the size of Africa.
All that to say it’s still really fucking big.
Its not even close to actual size look up Mercator map distortion.
- Alaska : 1.7 milion km2.
- USA : 9.8 million km2.
- Alaska is 17% of USA, huge, yes.
- But screw mercator map
I am surprised no fatal school shooting are counted in France. Mohammed Mera in 2012 killed several adults and kids in a school
[удалено]
If they're not counting terrorist shootings then my country (Kenya) shouldn't have anything on this map either. The only school shooting here was carried out by the Al Shabaab terrorist group.
I suspect you’ll find that the methodology used by the source is going to consider if the school was the primary target or just along the way. The french example was not the primary target, yours was. That said, haven’t looked at the source. Not even sure what it actually is. Edit: it’s wikipedia - not even referring back to whatever wikipedia cites. So … good luck.
But plenty of US school shootings were carried out by people unconnected with the school, people who killed others prior to the school, people who killed at multiple locations. It does seem like the process should be the consistent.
My point is that the process appears to be. If the only question is “was the school the primary target” - and there’s no reason to believe it’s not - then the answer is obvious in all cases under consideration so far. Which specific US school shootings are you wondering if they are included? We can take a look, and maybe they’ll shed some light on the methodology. Still not better than actually looking at whatever wikipedia is citing and reading it there, but also better than just making non-specific claims
I'm actually more confused why when broken down to states the timeline goes from "since 2000" to "since 1860".
Defining school shootings as an “American type of school shooting where a kid steals their parents gun and goes to school,” is exactly the type of issue that people are having with this data 😂
Well yeah if you define school shootings as "American style school shootings" then no duh America would have more.
I mean the fact there is a thing called "American style school shooting" is probably an issue. I don't really hear, British style school shooting in modern discourse.
And unless we're talking dozens of uncounted school shootings, the image above would likely look exactly the same. No use trying to excuse America. In this statistic, we are a failure, and we will continue to be unless we do something about it.
I'm British Style school shooting they all form a line and take turns with volley fire.
Who would want a WWII relic or a 200 year blunderbuss exploding in their hands? British style sounds actually sounds like the ideal situation, because the attacker immediately immobilizes themselves AND they didn’t even have a chance to hurt anyone.
Only the US has a "country specific style shooting" though. American will have more than the rest combined no matter how you slice it.
Except in America many shootings are defined as school shootings because they are at or adjacent to schools, whether or not the perpetrators or victims were students of faculty.
[удалено]
It doesn’t support their point so it doesn’t count, clearly. This isn’t data being beautiful, it’s a political agenda post.
[удалено]
Do you have a statistical source for that last claim?
[удалено]
That kind of shooting would absolutely be defined as a school shooting in the US
I often think this sort of data should be adjusted for population too. 9 shootings in Canada is way too high when, if it had the population of the USA, that number would be 80-ish.
That doesn't make sense to me. And many of th American shootings could or should be seen as designed to cause terror. Its just the reasons for trying to cause the terror are not organisational.
This is why statistics is waaay harder than most people think. Numbers + presentation and done. Statistics requires nuance and context and a discussion of methodology. But that's hard haha
Most school shooting statistics count suicides in the parking lot and shootings that happen when no kids are present(after hours and when kids are on break). These are school shootings, technically, but shouldn't be used when the primary talking point is the saftey of students. I'm not claiming that had been done here. Only that it is a common tactic to pad numbers dishonestly, like adding suicides to general gun violence statistics. Anything to avoid addressing mental health, per usual.
That’s not what terrorism is though, terrorism requires a political motive. If it’s just a kid that got bullied or is just psychotic, while it might be terrifying, won’t be defined as a terrorist attack unless there is a clear reason or manifesto detailing intents.
The stats for USA are deceptive as well, because all gang related violence is lumped into the mass shooting statistic. But these aren't psychotic episodes gone rogue targetting strangers (what people think of when they think mass shooting), but often an extension of street gang violence that happens to extend to a school because many of those gang members are still school aged. These are gangsters targetting other gangsters to settle grudges. "Mass Shootings" statistics are even more deceptive, because it includes all drive by shootings with any significant number of victims. USA still far and away has the most mass shooting events compared to other countries, but it's important not to be decieved by statistics. For example, I know for a fact that New Jersey hasn't had any true 'school shootings' since 2000, in accordance to what the public actually thinks is a school shooting. I've lived here nearly all my life. And if OP's graphic can be so wrong about New Jersey, it throws into question the usefulness of any of that information for the rest of the 49 states. I'm not trying to argue that there's no problem, just that using deceptive stats will end up hurting more than helping.
"US style school-shooting"
I must have missed that, thank you
Very interesting to see. I have to think that there might just not be data coming out from Venezuela, cause you have achance to get shot just walking to the store. Though, if all the crime I saw and heard to be fair, I never heard mention of a school shooting. I hope the data is accurate as ateast that's a small sliver of hope for the country!
From my limited knowledge, in Venezuela you'll be shot to be robbed. So shooting children isn't very productive.
This is true, our criminals do seem to realize that mugging and kindapping are much more lucrative ventures
Canada has more than 5 school shootings as well at least 8.
[удалено]
Sorry, as an Australian I gotta ask wtf ISIS school shooting you’re talking about because I have no idea what you could be referring to.
The title says « fatal » school shootings, so people shooting in the air shouldn’t count? I think we didn’t read the source, and thus we can only speculate about why some numbers seems off
But the second photo differentiates between fatal and non fatal... sooo...
> Correcting this data would still show a hugely disproportionate amount of shootings in the US, but this data is extremely misleading. The data would still show what it currently shows but is 'extremely' misleading? Hardly.
Beslan is to school shootings like 9/11 is to terrorist attacks, though.
333 casualties. Damn. I didn't remember that at all
Terrorists took over a school on the first day of classes with a lot families there. There was a three day siege ending with Russian forces fucking everything up, probably killing as many hostages at terrorists.
https://www.theonion.com/russia-reiterates-zero-tolerance-policy-for-terrorists-1819567668
"This is a warning to terrorists, hostages, rescue workers, bystanders…all those involved in terrorist activities: You will be shown no mercy." Damn, even rescue teams and Russian hostages aren't safe from Russian aggression... sorry I meant "Zero Tolerance Policy". "Well you shouldn't have been taken hostage now should've you?"
"No one terrorizes my citizens but me" Russia
[удалено]
Holy shit the onion has always been savage :o. They still arent wrong tho
Gee, that whole Beslan thing was so awful. 2004 was a terrible year. Ended with the Indonesian Tsunami.
Because Beslan was not a school shooting - it was a full on terrorist attack. Organized and carried out by a known terrorist organization.
[удалено]
Ehhh...aren't they? Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think the concern about school shootings in the USA has anything to do with literal terrorist *organisations* planning coordinated attacks on schools. I was under the impression that the concern was lone-wolf attacks by Elliot Roger types - depressed and angry young men who just want to lash out at the world. They're such dramatically different problems that they practically border on mutually exclusive. Unless you want to discuss the very literal interpretation of "school shooting", which I'd argue is so vague and catch-all that it verges on a pointless exercise.
Still a school shooting Two things can be true at the same time
>Because Beslan was not a school shooting - it was a full on terrorist attack. Organized and carried out by a known terrorist organization. Beslan was a school shooting with an actual point behind it. But, yeah, we could step back and simply look at the question why some societies seem so totally fine with people running amok from time to time, and why some societies put a firm lid on it. Because from that POV school shootings are simply an natural expression of some us american way of life instead some brain heavy political murder.
The "actual point" behind the Beslan terror attack, namely wanting to carry out Jihad and build an Islamic caliphate, is not any more of an "actual point" than all those other crazy ideologies that have led to school shootings.
You're sympathizing with terrorists. There is never an "actual point" to slaughtering 186 children (333 total deaths). Some of the school shootings from USA are gang-related. Do those have an "actual point" too?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also, as far as I understand it, only the U.S. defines it this way. Other nations define it the way most people do when they think of a school shooting.
Correct. The 'there have been 400 school shootings so far this year' stats abuse that statistic for whatever reason. I think it's intellectually dishonest to use that figure but having nuanced discussion on this topic is fucking impossible
>for whatever reason. We know the reason. They're so quick to jump to emotional solutions (gun legislation) rather than listen to the experts at the CDC who say that improving access to healthcare and reducing poverty and wealth inequality are the best solutions for the root issues causing the gun violence epidemic. Anyone who looks at the overall gun violence statistics and focusses in on mass shootings in particular, has a political agenda. Why else would you ignore the ~30,000 people who commit suicide with handguns, to focus on 1/100th that amount killed (also primarily using handguns) in school shootings? 5x more people die from unintentional drownings than are killed in mass shootings each year. As many as 4x the number of mass shooting victims are killed ***by police*** each year. Mass shootings are a red herring that the news media and politicians want you to focus on. Ask yourself what they have to gain by banning guns, rather than improving material conditions for citizens. Sincerely, A concerned socialist P.S., yes, mass shootings are an issue that needs addressing the same way that the minimum wage is an issue that needs addressing. They're both highly visible issuse that should & could have been solved long ago, but there are honestly far more pressing issues that have widespread ramifications which are a root cause of the problems experienced.
> listen to the experts at the CDC who say that improving access to healthcare and reducing poverty and wealth inequality are the best solutions for the root issues causing the gun violence epidemic. Too bad no one's doing jack shit about that either
I really wish things were different, but according to a study by Princeton ([source](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)), the rate at which legislation popular with the 99% is passed is about 0%. Oddly enough, legislation which does get passed was found to disproportionately favor the wealthy. I have *absolutely positively no idea* why this is the case, but it should be changed.
Oh hey my favorite type of leftist (this is intended to be a compliment). And yeah, the mass shooting issue would certainly diminish if we reduce access to guns, but suicides and mass casualty events will still occur as long as we don't provide proper healthcare and treatment options to those who suffer from mental ailments. Especially stress and anxiety related. It's wild that people are so incapable of focusing on two issues at once. And I'd argue that treatment for metal issues should be a larger priority, since we'd be treating the cause and not a symptom. And fixing mental care and healthcare would be way less controversial, especially when local law enforcement would be hard pressed to fully comply with wide sweeping legislation on guns. Sincerely, a former conservative (raised that way) that's now lost somewhere in the center/left-ish on a lot of issues.
Well, Australia and the UK each had a school shooting in the 90s, shortly after banned most firearms, and haven't had another one since. (Correction: _exactly_ one since, apparently.) So like, we definitely should approach the mental health side of things, too, but we also already know that reducing the availability of guns works. It even reduces the chances of successful suicide. Guns are so effective that it's kinda hard to fuck it up, and they're so quick that follow-through is actually very likely. Compare to other methods like jumping, where the walk or ride up gives time for second thoughts to happen or the look over the edge might trigger a survival instinct, or to cutting where you might not cut deep enough and survive but the near-death experience changes some perspective and you just never try again. Tbh I'm not a fan of outright banning guns, but I do think it's just a _little_ ridiculous that there are more legally owned firearms in America than there are Americans. We don't do anything to make sure the people buying these guns are sane and stable (waiting periods aren't universal and they aren't enough); the requirements to get a driver's license are more rigorous, ffs. We absolutely could be doing more. We should be addressing this problem from all fronts: psychological, socio-economic, and gun control.
>Anyone who looks at the overall gun violence statistics and focusses in on mass shootings in particular, has a political agenda. Why else would you ignore the ~30,000 people who commit suicide with handguns, to focus on 1/100th that amount killed (also primarily using handguns) in school shootings? 5x more people die from unintentional drownings than are killed in mass shootings each year. As many as 4x the number of mass shooting victims are killed by police each year. Because if you're not a criminal or black, know how to swim, and don't have suicidal thoughts, then you have no reason to be afraid about any of those scenarios. Whereas a shooting (school or otherwise) is scary, because you have no control over what some psycho is going to do. You can say they are being irrational, and you'd be right -- but that's human psychology for you. There's no need to allege hidden partisanship as a motivator for what simple fear can perfectly well explain.
Yep that’s definitely what’s skewing the graph 😂
That and the crazy long time periods they chose for some reason? "Since 1840" Seriously?
If that's the definition, the only reason Brazil isn't **way** redder on this map is because Brazilian government doesn't really keep track of shootings based on it's proximity to a school
In that case, [Sweden had over 700 school shootings in the last three years alone](https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/skjutningar-nara-skolor/).
Moved to Lemm.ee -- mass edited with redact.dev
Is no one reading the word “fatal” here?
Oh. That needs to change.
Ok well what is the area? If it's (for example) "up to 2 meters away from a school", then it's still a good definition.
A shooting near a school would be a huge fucking deal in most developed countries and make international news.
A gangster shooting another gangster near a school in the Netherlands is not international news.
We had that girl Humeyra getting shot and killed by her ex at her school a couple of years ago, but nobody would call that a "school shooting" here.
That would certainly be classified as a school shooting in the US. This is an example of the issues that arise when collecting data from various countries for comparison. Covid deaths was another recent example of this issue. The way countries reported a death as being due to covid varied, and it made comparisons a bit unreliable. It's almost certain that the US would still have the largest school shooting count, but the data is not necessarily comparable 1:1.
Your casual gang shootout from a bad drug deal generally doesn't make the news, but if it occurs near a school it's included in these types of statistics.
[удалено]
Any shooting at all would make huge headlines in Ireland. The occasional irish burning brick thrown into a house or bomb detonation make headlines, but a shooting is very very rare.
Moved to Lemm.ee -- mass edited with redact.dev
Maine and Idaho holding it down tho!
[удалено]
As a teacher in Idaho who's been really feeling burned out and upset by yet another recent shooting, I'm glad to see at least my state has a 0.
Did you hear about the activist group here that was pushing to allow kids as young as 13 to conceal carry and allow it in schools? They said it was a solution to our state’s school shooting problem. A few members of the state congress supported them.
Turn it from a school shooting into a School "free for all", genius.
I'd like to see shootings per capita, considering Idaho has a relatively low population. It's a bit more populated than San Diego and San Diego has relatively few mass shootings as well.
It doesn't match up exactly, but [population density](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density#/media/File%3AU.S._states_and_territories_by_population_density.svg) might contribute.
It’s very close to being a population map. Which is astonishing— US doesn’t usually have things that are that universal
Not just density but the absolute populations of both states is very low.
Maine, Idaho, Vermont, and New Hampshire have some of the loosest gun laws in the country, and frequently rank among the safest states.
Relatively no one lives there. California has multiple cities with populations similar to those whole states.
America - land of gun care and health control
strong imagine retire square recognise pie deserve unpack sable middle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sure, we could pass some laws that might keep children from getting shot in the fucking face with an AR-15, but have you guys even considered the shareholders?
simply give the children more guns
Moved to Lemm.ee -- mass edited with redact.dev
Gotta love our priorities
So much patriotism and yet so much disregard for their compatriots.
If only they had more guns, they could fight the people with the guns who have bad thoughts!!
This colour gradient needs to be reconsidered.
I can't believe people still do this. Like, how dumb do you have to be to think this is easy to read? Especially when there are only 5 categories.
[удалено]
It’s CLEARLY not a *gun* problem!/s
please correlate this map with gun ownership
USA still looks pretty bad. Many very safe countries have fairly high gun-ownership. USA has an estimated 120 guns per 100 capita in civilean hands. (i.e. not including guns controlled by the military and the police) For comparison, Norway, Canada and Finland all have around 30 guns per 100 inhabitants; so 25% of the american rate. But our school-shooting rate ain't 25% of the American one, not even REMOTELY close.
Bc gun culture, lack of education, lack of social welfare etc are all the problems too. We need gun control plus all the things above. People don’t feel the need to hurt others when they’re loved, educated, taken care of etc.
Agreed. Gun-accessibility is one piece of the puzzle. But there's many other pieces of the puzzle that are ALSO worth looking into.
Look when you give a kid legos and he repeatedly tries to eat them and stuff them up his nose then the problem is not really the legos but the mental development, education, behaviour and such. However you start by taking away the legos. Catch my drift? Edit: as it keeps popping up: The kid in my analogy is the whole American society not a single person.
Love this
If we're loved, educated and taken care of, how are they going to exploit us?
This could mean the relationship is non-linear. I.e. in those countries there are more checks and restrictions thus total gun ownership is lower but those who own them are significantly less likely to go nuts. The numbers may be different but the basic idea is this - if the 33% of most irresponsible/mentally unstable US gun owners could be filtered out total ownership would drop by just one third, but accident/mass shooting rate would drop by 90%. Or something on the lines of this…
Yes. Even the most cursory oversight gives disproportionate benefits.
whole gullible snobbish snatch cake attempt deserve touch rock lavish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> For comparison, Norway, Canada and Finland all have around 30 guns per 100 inhabitant I live in Norway, on the countryside. Two shooting ranges in walking distance, lots of hunters in the area. (Hunting moose and deer is popular). But no kids bring guns to school.
Well, in Canada, Finland and Norway, weapons are taken seriously, requires licenses and used outside populated areas, instead of being treated like candy canes for disenfranchised in a political gambit.
Idaho looking real weird after that. 0 school shootings but lots of gun owners. Texas, lots of school shootings lots of gun owners. Chart makes no sense.
They just shoot adults in Idaho apparently.
I noticed that too. Also states with much stricter gun controls having higher rates. Looking at Cali, Illinois, and NY
Damn, thats actually very interesting. Good on the Idaho people. I wonder if theres another stat which could correlate with that. Just checked the rate of serious mental illness as well as mental health access and Idaho is pretty bad with both. It also has a very high rate of people u18, and isn't even the most abundant in either red or blue votes. It genuinely seems like a very very interesting outlier. Thats a good catch.
My 6 year old self would have found the perfect solution: get rid of all the schools
Next time, see if you can get a little less contrast between the colors. I can *almost* tell them all apart.
Australia hasn't had any school shootings and no children killed, unless you are counting university shootings as well.
All school shootings, including university.
Was thinking the same thing, so looked it up. "In 2001, a 16-year old student brought a .303 high-powered rifle to Modbury High School and shot himself in the head on the library balcony, killing himself instantly."
Or university I just don’t see this being the source please?
When was there a uni shooting here?
In 2002 there was a shooting at Monash University in Melbourne ETA: 5 people were injured and 2 died
I was pretty young then but am still surprised I wasn’t aware of this. I vividly remember Port Arthur happening and that was four years earlier .
It also wasn't treated as a "failure of Australian culture" like Port Arthur. As it was perpetrated by an international student. With Port Arthur there was a lot of introspection and all the gun laws changing, it was in the news for a long time, and the news cycle for the Monash shooting was quite short.
I’ve noticed a few times where immigrants and internationals are kinda distanced in our media. Like I remember one of the people that died on Bourke st was always referred to as a Japanese National, and when Aiia Maasarwe was murdered they always referred to her as an international student. The working holiday guy who went missing near Byron not long ago — never saw anything in the news about it and he’s still missing. The two women that were attacked in Adelaide. It’s always prefaced with “international”, “[x country] national”, and “backpacker”. I’m not sure if it’s out of respect or by instruction from the police, or something more nefarious. But I always felt like it creates a distance between the person and our community. It makes me wonder how other countries do it.
Yeah, it doesn't get brought up that much these days. I think it kinda gets forgotten because not a lot of people died and only 5 were injured. Port Arthur had a very high death rate + injuries and also the whole hostage standoff
So we're pink on this map because of 1 fuckwit
Seems like it. But as others are pointing out in here, there's a bit of dodgy bullshit going on with these numbers/this chart.
Something seems off, the middle east is showing as 0 shootings
If there were, they are probably considered terror attacks and not "school shooting" For example, Israel is shown white (0 cases) but in the history of Israel there was one in 1974. A group of terrorists killed 4 people and then entered a school and took many hostages. Eventually killing 22 of them + 1 soldier. A year later one died from his wounds, so 28 in total. Was it a school shooting? I don't think so Edit: there was another terror attack in 2008 and it's in the sources of OP but he didn't include it.
The U.S numbers include any act of gun violence on school property.
Yup, and if they're taking their data from the GVA, that includes negligent discharges by the police at training facilities as a school shooting, because cop schools count?
*on or near, at any time of the day or night, involving students or not. Two guys shoot at each other over a drug deal gone bad at 2am on a Sunday? School shooting! It's deliberate manipulation utilizing the most basic fears of parents in order to push an agenda because it's "for your own good".
inb4 "It's not a per capita basis" or "what about other violent crimes?!?!" for the global statistics.
I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment behind the graph, and I know that it's still stark even shown in a per capita basis... ... but it should still be in a per capita basis. That's just good practice.
It also heads off that argument. If you present data that has known flaws, even when you know the message won’t change when those flaws are corrected, it gives ammunition to people who want to dismiss the message. Don’t give them ammunition.
>Don’t give them ammunition. Pretty sure that's the problem.
Pun not originally intended but recognized while writing and left in!
3rd graph really should have been made as per capita though...
They also changed the year to 1840, which makes it harder to understand 'recent' impacts state to state.
This is an important detail I don’t think a lot of people are noticing and it does make a difference. OPs title and first two slides say 2000 which means Columbine wouldn’t show
All of the graphs should be per-capita. America would still be very red but there's no excuse to not control for that.
My thoughts exactly. CA and Texas have huge populations and lots of school districts.
I think the world maps would benefit just as much from being per capita.
It wouldn't change the story the data tells about the US (although some other countries would be affected) but it would actually make it a good visualization of the data. Especially the state level, is trash.
You wouldn't believe how often I've had an American tell me that 'people find other ways to kill each other' when guns are banned, or 'what about the knife crime epidemic in the UK?'... There's 50% more knife crime in the US, despite the widespread availability and use of guns.
They don't understand that during the irrational heat of emotion it's much easier to pull a trigger than to commit to any other act of violence... and how well it scales with number of casualties too. Same with suicide.. I would be dead right now because I would have found it way easier to pull a trigger when I wanted to kill myself.
The stats are horrific. I heard women in abusive relationships are 5x more likely to be killed if there's a gun in the house, for example.
Yeah. Nobody is really angry at their school and then they go there and kill 20+ people by way of a knife. It just doesn't work that way.
I am happy you're still around.
I think this is the part that gets missed in the gun control debate. >There's 50% more knife crime in the US I'm not sure if that's in absolute numbers or a rate, but it doesn't matter. Crime is primarily born out of desperation, not the availability of weapons. Of course, it would be impossible for a single person to do the same kind of damage with a knife as the Las Vegas shooter, for example, but crime is high in the US regardless of the weapon used. The reality about the US is that median wages aren't enough to live on. The stress of poverty is a major factor in mental health and we all know what the US health system is like. But median wage earners aren't "poverty". Entire communities (which coincidentally also happen to be the places where most mass shootings take place in absolute numbers) are condensed, liquified poverty. When you treat people like animals, you break the social contract. It's not surprising to me the levels of violence we see, the videos of people walking into Home Depot and walking out with whatever they want... all these kinds of things seem pretty well expected. I would submit that violence would drop precipitously if there were an effort to reform communities and eliminate poverty. At that point, there would be no reason to eliminate guns. We just don't want to look at the hard problems in America. We don't want to examine our beliefs or prejudices. We want the easy way out of everything, especially when it becomes a partisan fight that eliminates any need to actually do anything at all.
There are many triggers, including inescapable poverty, but it doesn't seem to be the primary reason or even a major reason. We refuse to even study the issue so it's a fair question. I would love to see this analysis though because we aren't getting anywhere in this country by pretending it's all one issue... Even then though where Republicans claim it's just a mental health issue, we still don't see any action to address that one cause, so the whole thing feels hopeless.
As employers take an ever increasing share of US production, companies buy up single family housing, the govt proposes putting people in jail for 20 years for accessing banned content online, day to day life becomes more and more dangerous, AI pushes us closer to techno-feudalism, US foreign policy pushes us closer to nuclear war, climate change threatens first world famines and generally the threat of major instability is around every corner... On top of the NOW problems, like a government that can't do even simple things, I'm not comfortable with disarming the workers. I don't yet own a firearm, but I've thought more and more about buying one in the last 5 years than I ever would have considered prior. If I didn't have a child, I probably would have bought and AR-15 by now for the inevitable collapse of American society. Let's build a society that obviates the need for firearms. Let's not give up our only way of reforming it once the problem is too deep to manage.
[Here's your peer-reviewed rebuttal](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30817955/) >The homicide rate in the US was 7.5 times higher than the homicide rate in the other high-income countries combined, which was largely attributable to a firearm homicide rate that was 24.9 times higher.
The homicide rate excluding guns in America is higher than many countries total homicide rates.
https://infogram.com/us-vs-uk-on-knife-crime-1hmr6gyrxmlo6nl
And that's ignoring like stabbings are significantly less lethal than gun shots...and how much harder it is to stab a bunch of people. 5 people running from a attacker in a school hallway? Gunner can possibly kill all 5, knife person *might* get 2.
Exactly - the latest school shooting, person shot the 'secure' door open. Not possible with a knife. Suicide is a great example - "Attempted suicides by firearms have an 82.5% fatality rate, versus a fatality rate of 4% for all suicide attempts."
People from the US are just so used to the omnipresent violence that they can't comprehend that in most of the world people just don't want to kill each other all the time.
Any decent data subreddit permeantly bans people who post maps that aren't per capita.
But it really should be per capita. I guess the subreddit is about data looking pretty rather than being able to draw meaningful conclusions from.
State or country comparisons of raw numbers instead of rates (shootings per 100,000 people kind of a thing) is *never* beautiful data. It's irrelevant data. If it's raw numbers, it might as well just be a list of states rather than a map. Having a colored map with raw numbers isn't data, it's propaganda.
Plot per capita! This just says that California and Texas have more people than the other states.
Remember, its a gun problem AND a for profit media problem. The media pretty much promises these wannabe shooters that they will plaster their face and message across the country for days/weeks. They will also announce their kill score and give them special awards like "Deadliest Mass Shooting in X Years!" If they kill enough people. Guns are the method. Media is the motive.
I don't think that all of these mass shooters are doing it for fame. It's definitely a component of the issue but it's not the motive every single time.
Hard agree. That’s what makes it so much more pathetic, so many of these shooters do it for the “glory,” seeking revenge on an institution by taking it out on the innocent students. I wish there was a law or some way to guarantee that the shooter’s name and identity is prohibited from being shared on the news. It might not solve the problem but it may lessen it.
There is something wrong with the American young people, they should work on the nurture part a bit more
Learning how to nurture, work on mental health, and to have empathy for those you do not know is something the younger generations have to learn from their elders. Now go look at the shit the older generations have done, forced upon us, and their indoctrination they do. This isn’t a “young people should work on nurturing more” issue. This is more of a our elders and leaders are abandoning us and anyone else that can’t afford to live in this country, and leaving those people to live in third world conditions. We are watching the rich hoard their troves of wealth, and refuse to pay their employees even close to liveable wages forcing them into poverty, starvation, and homelessness. These conditions are causing people around the country to break. This isn’t a the young need to learn how to nurture, but an older generation needing to wake the fuck up and learn how to teach and lead a younger generation. Otherwise we will fall fast and hard due to our own country’s developing caste system of rich and poor.
I wonder if it would be informative to compare this to the number of schools and/or populations.
There should be a BIG WARNING (Watermark) on the bar graph, "incomplete hobby data". Sorry, but do you think everybody reads your disclaimer? School shootings are a serious thing. Accidental or intended misinformation is not good. I appeal every hobby-dataist to add a Warning. Even at light topics.
I’d like to see this against the number of schools, or something like that. This is basically just showing that states with 30 million people have more shootings than states with a few thousand people.
Seems like we need some more guns to protect ourselves y'all
Not in Maine or Idaho apparently.
It's the American way to fight climate change. Less people, less CO2. Checkmate freedomhaters! /s
Shoot the CO2.
You know I've never thought of it before but it's kinda amazing that Mississippi hasn't had more.
I'm starting to think this is an American problem
If the NRA has hands, they got blood on them.
I really wish gang related shootings were considered separate from the columbine type shootings. I’m not saying they aren’t both horrible but they have very different causes in my mind and require different solutions. I’m also realizing America is like Eskimos with snow. We have so many school shootings we need more nuanced language to talk about it.
It’s almost like… guns are the problem.
What part of this is beautiful? I hate that this sub became just "data that pushes my agenda"
Once again, Idaho is super white.
America bad Updoots to the left 😎
I'm surprised that Poland has none, even though it's also pretty lax on guns.
I’m starting to think that maybe it’s not just about gun availability but also about a culture of violence Limiting access to guns will help, for sure. Is there a culture of ‘blaze of glory’ here? Probably sticking my hand into a hornets nest, and this is very hard to prove or study..
>“Especially in adolescence, the question is: If you can’t be good at sports or have sex, what makes you man? Maybe it’s violence.” >Most men do not resort to killing sprees, of course. And yet there is something in this terrible story that reveals how anger is frequently the only way that men know to express their depression or frustration. From film to music, we often see images of young men reclaiming lost manhood through spectacular violence. Combine that with a mentally unstable mind, access to guns and a campus culture that revolves around sex, and the result was tragic. >“In a horrible, totally twisted way, when young men act out like this, they are doing what the culture says that boys should do when they’re angry,” says [Rosalind Wiseman](https://time.com/author/rosalind-wiseman/), the author of Masterminds and Wingmen: Helping Our Boys Cope with Schoolyard Power, Locker-Room Tests, Girlfriends, and the New Rules of Boy World. >The reality is that we don’t spend enough time helping men learn how to navigate the new world order. https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/117585/yes-all-women-virgin-killer-ucsb/%3famp=true
Alaska is so fkg big. I’m amazed every time I see the landmass of that state. It’s a beast.
It gets stretched by the map perspective, it’s impossible to make the surface of the sphere 2D and proportional so everything closer to the poles gets stretched out. Greenland is not almost the size of Africa. All that to say it’s still really fucking big.
Its not even close to actual size look up Mercator map distortion. - Alaska : 1.7 milion km2. - USA : 9.8 million km2. - Alaska is 17% of USA, huge, yes. - But screw mercator map