Is it just me or are there more random shootings lately?

[Borderland]

Seems like just about everyday now there's a random shooting somewhere that involves multiple people. People just going about their everyday business being shot in grocery stores, parking lots, gas stations, you name it. I just saw this https://6abc.com/shooting-spree-near-wawa-store-leaves-1-victim-dead/10533701/ and that's what my reaction was.

It's happening locally also and it gets about 10 minutes on the nat'l news and on to the next shooting.

[Guerrero]

Seems like just about everyday now there's a random shooting somewhere that involves multiple people. People just going about their everyday business being shot in grocery stores, parking lots, gas stations, you name it. I just saw this https://6abc.com/shooting-spree-near-wawa-store-leaves-1-victim-dead/10533701/ and that's what my reaction was.

It's happening locally also and it gets about 10 minutes on the nat'l news and on to the next shooting.

Do you realize how many Mass Shootings (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/us/mass-shootings-45-one-month/index.html) we've had this month alone?



(Non sarcasm)
I think there's a hyper-sensitivity among the media right now. They smell blood in the water for both clicks and activism.

[LittleLebowski]

There's a new Narrative.

[Borderland]

Do you realize how many Mass Shootings (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/us/mass-shootings-45-one-month/index.html) we've had this month alone?



(Non sarcasm)
I think there's a hyper-sensitivity among the media right now. They smell blood in the water for both clicks and activism.

Somethings really got people doing some weird shit. Random shootings makes no sense to me.

[ccmdfd]

(Non sarcasm)
I think there's a hyper-sensitivity among the media right now. They smell blood in the water for both clicks and activism.

Yes, yes, and yes!

This is the first time in quite a while that we've had an anti 2nd Amendment president, and both houses of Congress. And depending upon what we've also been reading May soon be the Supreme Court. They have to strike now while the iron is hot. It's possible, but I'm not holding my breath, that they may lose one house of Congress next year.


With that being said, I do have to wonder if we as a society aren't being meaner than we were in the past. It certainly feels like politics is that way. I am not under any illusion that politics was ever really truly civil, but not to the level of current anger towards your opponent these days.

[Guerrero]

Somethings really got people doing some weird shit. Random shootings makes no sense to me.

There's also the whole Malcom Gladwell "slow-motion riot" (https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/what-is-going-on-with-mass-shootings-lessons-from-past-solved-problems) aspect.


ETA: Gladwell's original article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence)

[Lex Luthier]

The clicks-driven "news" media doesn't care if the bloodshed is from a random shooting or violent political upheaval, nor do they care if they stir the outrage and ruin or even end lives- they just want to get paid.

[fixer]

CNN flat admitted that the races involved in a shooting play a role in their coverage.

[wvincent]

Yes, yes, and yes!

This is the first time in quite a while that we've had an anti 2nd Amendment president, and both houses of Congress. And depending upon what we've also been reading May soon be the Supreme Court. They have to strike now while the iron is hot. It's possible, but I'm not holding my breath, that they may lose one house of Congress next year.


With that being said, I do have to wonder if we as a society aren't being meaner than we were in the past. It certainly feels like politics is that way. I am not under any illusion that politics was ever really truly civil, but not to the level of current anger towards your opponent these days.

It's easy to lose the facade of civility when a large portion of the population is wearing a mask. Not being able to be identified for repercussions for bad behavior tends to embolden folks to act in ways they normally wouldn't.

Plus, if anyone is taking their cues from the elected leadership in DC or elsewhere, threats of violence and the acts themselves seem to be the currency of the moment.

And a media making it's fortune's by selling outrage porn certainly doesn't help.

The media and big tech have realized just how much power they wield at the moment, and they are using it to full effect.

[Suvorov]

I think it’s that the media is now reporting theses smaller shootings in order to reinforce the narrative that the US is besought with an epidemic of gun violence. That in turn will garner support for the gun control legislation being discussed right now.

Of course I’m just a silly conspiracy nut..... :rolleyes:

[RevolverRob]

The skeptic in me questions how 'random' shootings really are. Data suggest they are not. Data contrary to the prevailing narrative are often swept away or conveniently omitted. National news is representing 'mass' shootings (which prior to 2012 were defined as shootings with 5 victims or more, now redefined as 3 victims or more) as 'random'. But in fact, in most cases it is apparent the individual who perpetrated the crime had plenty of motive. Worse, it appears in many cases there was advanced warning that the crime would occur, that authorities were notified, and that there was a failure to act, follow up, or otherwise inhibition of law enforcement to prevent a crime from occurring.

The latter point is especially damning of the system and the narrative. Because it's all built on the conceptual framework that we need government intervention and more of it. If they can't get shit right, right now in the system, why do we think it will get better? Remember this is a government that couldn't turn a profit in a whorehouse. If, instead, shootings are portrayed as random and the police and state are our protectors, then logically, more protection against 'random' violence would be a good thing.

Realistically, violence is not randomly distributed. More police and more laws won't protect us, because what's going on, isn't random at all. With startling accuracy we can predict where most crime happens and who perpetrates it. A more proactive set of policies that includes actually imprisoning and/or eliminating the individuals who are the perpetrators of said 'random' violence, will go a long way towards solving the problem. The problem with the aforementioned solution is that 'random' violence is perpetuated primarily by a certain subset in our society and enforcement of laws against them has been deemed racist.

That represents a genuine problem, because a goodly portion of our society and history was built on the backs of forced/slave labor and we have substantial historical amounts of racism in our past. As such, policies that will disproportionately target individuals belonging to one group (to be brutally honest, young black males) are 'untenable' when carried out by the state. It's a precarious position to be in, because we have a situation where one group commits most of the crime and where we cannot actively police that group due to the abuses in the past. We can't find a way forward, until we find a solution for past mistakes, we can't find a solution for past mistakes, because they are far in the past. It's a Catch-22 of epic proportions.

Frankly, the best solution to these problems isn't tenable. Constructing a self-sufficient society that values hard, honest, work, doesn't glorify easy solutions to problems, and respects strong enforcement of laws - simply won't happen. At least...not without a substantial draw-down of our population numbers. We need to slice our population by about 3/4ths to enact such sweeping social changes. Until Americans give up on Kardashians and 15-minutes of Fame and focus on solving real problems with hard solutions, we're fucked.

[MickAK]

Somethings really got people doing some weird shit. Random shootings makes no sense to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor

[RevolverRob]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor

Since the first SSRIs began being prescribed in the 1970s and roughly one third of our society takes them, it isn't SSRIs or any class of anti-depressant that is driving these problems. The numbers don't even correlate, let alone drive cause to one another.

It's irresponsible to imply that these medications, which have decades of demonstrated safe use, are a causal source of violence in our society. That's a really good way to result in increased and onerous restrictions on gun owners and gun ownership. Because if people within the pro-gun community buy into this fallacious argument, then they're more willing to accept that people who have ever been prescribed SSRIs or other anti-depressants should be banned from owning firearms. This is the exact message I have seen percolate through the community before and one that is far more harmful than helpful.

[Ichiban]

A lot of stories that would have been considered as "local news" are now getting national attention.
Apparently they have a lot of air time to fill without Trump in the spotlight. And it help drive a narrative.

I think used car salesman at the corner lot is more trustworthy than the average news clown.

[SAWBONES]

Is it just me or are there more random shootings lately?

Yes.
Much more, or at least it certainly seems so, and definitely with much more and frequent coverage by the news media.

I'm personally convinced that the publicity is designed to support the Left's narrative that common people, private individuals, may no longer safely be permitted to own firearms and firearms-related equipment, such that only federal government intervention and control can fix the problem, even perhaps to the extent of requiring amending of the constitution.

Our nation has never before had so many political "leaders" with such an awful combination of personalty characteristics, to wit, dishonesty, lower intelligence, ignorance of history, cowardice, and apparent susceptibility to truly-malign ideas like Socialism, Critical Race Theory and Gender Fluidity.

I truly fear for the future. I'm old enough not to be terribly discomfited by anything likely to soon come down the pike, but I do worry about the younger generations, including my own grandchildren.

[JM Campbell]

A lot of stories that would have been considered as "local news" are now getting national attention.
Apparently they have a lot of air time to fill without Trump in the spotlight. And it help drive a narrative.

I think used car salesman at the corner lot is more trustworthy than the average news clown.

Damn straight, 23 years at a car dealer and I agree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whomever]

I'd be real careful about assuming 'being reported a lot in the news' with 'occurring a lot'. The 'Summer of the Shark' was a real thing:

"In terms of absolute minutes of television coverage on the three major broadcast networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—shark attacks were 2001's third "most important" news story prior to September 11, behind the western United States forest fires, and the political scandal resulting from the Chandra Levy missing persons case.[10] However, the comparatively higher shock value of shark attacks left a lasting impression on the public. According to the International Shark Attack File, there were 76 shark attacks that occurred in 2001, lower than the 85 attacks documented in 2000; furthermore, although 5 people were killed in attacks in 2001, this was less than the 12 deaths caused by shark attacks the previous year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark

For another familiar example, approximately 2/3 or so of 'deaths due to gun violence' are suicides. IMHE, lots of people don't believe that 'because I never read about suicides in the news'. Which is true; news media rarely cover them, for several reasons.

What is covered in the news isn't a random or proportional sampling of what is actually happening. 'Dog bites man' vs 'man bites dog' and all that.

[DDTSGM]

There's also the whole Malcom Gladwell "slow-motion riot" (https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/what-is-going-on-with-mass-shootings-lessons-from-past-solved-problems) aspect.


ETA: Gladwell's original article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence)

Very much worth reading. If you can't get to the New Yorker article, it can also be found here:

https://www.commonlit.org/en/texts/thresholds-of-violence