I’ve never been a war zone, but from what I’ve read, I’m pretty sure it’s worse. The US is a very large country. Your likelihood of getting caught in one of these shootings is still much lower...
I’ve never been a war zone, but from what I’ve read, I’m pretty sure it’s worse.
The US is a very large country. Your likelihood of getting caught in one of these shootings is still much lower than dying in a car accident. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things you can do to increase your odds, but if your pessimistic thinking isn’t resulting in productive precautions, maybe it’s time to stop reading the news for a while?
This seems to be true. There is a slideshow/PDF from UC Davis (sourced from NYTimes) that shows this chart on page 4. Homicide rates from firearms were generally higher in the 80s and 90s than in...
I believe I was still more likely to get killed as a teen while out in the 90s than today as an adult.
This seems to be true. There is a slideshow/PDF from UC Davis (sourced from NYTimes) that shows this chart on page 4. Homicide rates from firearms were generally higher in the 80s and 90s than in the past 10 years leading up to 2019 (the latest year in that chart). It shows some other interesting things, like comparing vehicle deaths to firearm related deaths (suicides and homicides together), and at what ages people of different ethnicities are most likely to be killed by firearm violence. It also shows death rates of males and females at different ages.
I was reading The Warriors recently and it was kind of shocking to think that a story about a gang in 1950s/1960s New York City ... didn't revolve around firearm crimes. Because there weren't nearly as many guns on the streets and in the hands of youths back then. What would the US be like now if people had social media back then? Would they be more informed? More scared? What would society be like during the Red Scare, post-Korean War, and in the lead up to the Vietnam War era?
Dramatically different. The number of households with guns has actually declined slowly over the last 40 years, but the number of guns per capita has gone way up. Estimates put the number at...
Dramatically different. The number of households with guns has actually declined slowly over the last 40 years, but the number of guns per capita has gone way up. Estimates put the number at anywhere from 350 to 450 million guns in circulation in the US. Which is to say more guns than people. Making the US the world leader in guns per capita by a huge margin.
Ironically, gun control conversations are part of the reason for that. Every time gun control comes up in the national conversation, gun sales spike. There is every indication that (many) gun owners are extremely insecure about losing their guns, or the ability to buy certain guns.
Well there's a question. A lot has happened related to firearm tolerance, fear, and regulation and much of it in the late 50s and through the 1960s. The Vietnam War happened, along with a draft...
What has changed to cause there to be so many more guns?
Well there's a question. A lot has happened related to firearm tolerance, fear, and regulation and much of it in the late 50s and through the 1960s.
The Vietnam War happened, along with a draft that disproportionately affected the poor, disenfranchised (because they couldn't get a waiver), and black Americans (who at 11% of the US population comprised 16% of draftees and 23% of combat troops). The assassination of a sitting U.S. president (JFK). Civil rights protests, the assassination of Martin Luther King and the subsequent riots in 1968 including in Washington DC that triggered a curfew and the deployment of national guards troops. Movements promoting violence and generally a lot of anti-government sentiment both from the counter-culture movement and from violent groups. The deadliest shooting in US history to date occurring on a college campus. By the 1960s the American Mafia had also opened the doors to dealing in narcotics after a long, self-imposed prohibition (after the prohibition was lifted made men and even associates were forbidden from getting into cocaine, the dominant drug, but were allowed to sell it to black and Latino communities). Along with motorcycle clubs and other organizations getting into narcotics and firearms trafficking. there may have been a wider proliferation of hard drugs throughout the US (and to an extent a better awareness of addiction and its effects).
Corruption and opportunism led some troops in Vietnam to begin smuggling guns and money-making substances, such as heroin, using military transports. This may have contributed to an influx of drugs into the US and increased supply to outlaw motorcycle gangs, like the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (formally there's no apostrophe), who had been in the business of trafficking narcotics and firearms and are alleged to have been suppliers of heroin to rock groups (and their audiences) in the 1960s. I'm not sure when the Hells Angels MC began trafficking weapons or narcotics, but it seems like a departure from their origins in the late 1940s or early 1950s. But we know that the Gypsy Joker MC was formed in 1956 in San Bernardino, California and were involved in gang disputes with the HAMC along the west coast thereafter and became involved in drug trafficking and other organized crime. So these MCs were already established in money-making enterprises and as with many trafficking groups it's relatively easy to transition from one type of crime to another. Involvement in cross-over crimes among transnational traffickers is a very common thing today and we see human traffickers also trafficking weapons, narcotics, and high-value wildlife products such as ivory (PDF) and pangolin scales.
In 1968 the US Congress passed the Gun Control Act which reorganized the original entity regulating firearms (then a part of the IRS) and gave it the name Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division. It also created the baseline requirement of an FFL to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. By 1970 the US Congress was passing legislation to control substances and regulate them better, in 1971 Nixon called for a "war on drugs," and in 1972 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was spun off, making the weapons-regulating body distinct from the revenue bureau of the Treasury Department for the first time since 1886. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration was formed. So by 1973 we knew that all these things were a problem and the legislative and executive branches were creating some long-lasting policies to address these issues.
But why is gun violence bigger problem since the 1970s? Maybe because we haven't really addressed many of the underlying problems mentioned above and people are still reacting to fear and uncertainty about the future. Drug dealers feel a need to own firearms (largely protect themselves from others) and know that they're now breaking numerous federal laws by owning a firearm as well as illegal substances (btw it's illegal to have a medical marijuana card and own a firearm, too). Law enforcement methods have become increasingly militaristic and mistrustful of civilians. Since the 70s there has been a surge in focusing on prosecuting drug offenders (and lengthening sentences) as well as the creation of the for-profit prison industry. The war on drugs has seen a large proliferation of unserialized or unlicensed firearms throughout the US and its southern neighbors. Different government administrations and iterations of Congress flip flop on backing successes in countering the cocaine industry in the Americas (sometimes because they're simply not exciting successes -- like paying farmers to plant anything but coca, providing non-violent jobs to ex-cartel members, etc.). Oh, and in the US we've grandfathered-in gun ownership, so as long as you can get your hands on something before new legislation is passed, you can probably keep it (this is true of bans on automatics, assault rifles in Delaware, and pistol braces with appropriate paperwork).
The likelihood is low, I'll give you that. But even with how low it technically is, it's disturbing how frequent it is given the sheer unpredictability. It's hard to name a type of business or...
The likelihood is low, I'll give you that. But even with how low it technically is, it's disturbing how frequent it is given the sheer unpredictability. It's hard to name a type of business or location which hasn't been the target of a mass shooting.
Anyone who goes bowling in the coming weeks, good chance they're going to think about this. Anyone who goes to a music festival will think of Las Vegas. Movie theaters, Aurora. Grocery stores have Buffalo.
That isn't even people obsessing over it, it's just normal. It's a passing, casual thought, that some random stranger might walk inside with a gun. It's normal for kids to have active shooter drills in school, and learn to smear themselves with blood so the shooter will think they're dead. I saw a Winnie-the-Pooh book (not Disney, public domain) someone's kid brought home about what to do during a shooting, and that's just—damn. There's something REALLY wrong when we're at the point of teaching young kids about shooter situations with books like that.
The odds are low, and there are many other more likely ways we can suddenly die. But a random mass shooting feels far more horrific than other deaths.
War zones are worse in terms of carnage, and I did hesitate to use this title for that reason. But again, at least people in war zones KNOW they're in one and can be cautious. That's different from all of the lives randomly ended in a "peaceful" city and country by a single crazy person. Random acts of violence happen everywhere, but it can be on much larger and devastating scales in the US. And it's FAR too frequent compared to other countries.
This post is just me venting because it's just so frustrating how normal this is. There's not much people can do on an individual level beyond "never go outside," which I'm not going to do because I'm not that scared or anxious. And, like you said, the odds of me ever actually getting caught up in one are low. But I still hate I'm at a point where I can casually ponder the possibility of someone bursting through a door with a gun—emphasis on casually. I feel like I should be more horrified by even having that sort of thought, but no. It's normal to have this constant edge of paranoia.
It shouldn't be normal. We should be more horrified by these shootings, absolutely devastated and mourning alongside the victims, but we're at a point where we have to be a little numb with how common they are. There's something truly messed up when someone mentions a recent mass shooting and you have to ask "which one".
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. It's disrespectful to the people whose lives are hell every single day. I can't believe you're saying the US is worse. I'm frankly disgusted by this post. Yes,...
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. It's disrespectful to the people whose lives are hell every single day. I can't believe you're saying the US is worse. I'm frankly disgusted by this post. Yes, the US has problems. Yes, we should try to make it better. No, saying that the US has it worse than the Gazans or Yemenis or Ukrainians have it is not acceptable.
I’m so tired of every political point turning into the most over exaggerated version of itself. People have over learned from social media the idea that the most extreme thing you can say is the...
I’m so tired of every political point turning into the most over exaggerated version of itself. People have over learned from social media the idea that the most extreme thing you can say is the most effective which might be true for engagement based algorithms but certainly not for real life and actual change.
Yeah this post is beyond trivializing the experiences of people living in active war zones. Beyond gun violence, the vast majority of US citizens don't have to actively worry about their access to...
Yeah this post is beyond trivializing the experiences of people living in active war zones. Beyond gun violence, the vast majority of US citizens don't have to actively worry about their access to food, clean water, or medical care. US citizens don't need to don't worry about their ability to travel beyond the country's borders, or if their passports will even be accepted elsewhere. US citizens don't have to worry about their economy and currency collapsing out of nowhere, wiping out all of their savings. US citizens don't have to worry about getting arrested by their government for speaking out or being conscripted into battle.
Gun violence is not the only thing that makes war horrific. You could argue there are plenty of US citizens who experience significant financial hardships that do restrict a lot of their freedoms, and you'd be right. But, for example, there's a huge difference between not being able to afford to see a doctor, and there being no doctors left within a hundred miles. There's a big difference between having to get drinking water from a public water fountain versus having to resort to drinking salt water.
No, absolutely not. Do you understand how awful it is to live in a warzone? To be in fear that your life will end literally any minute whether you're out or at home? Life is fucking horrifying in...
No, absolutely not. Do you understand how awful it is to live in a warzone? To be in fear that your life will end literally any minute whether you're out or at home? Life is fucking horrifying in those places. To say that the US is worse because you were out shopping and heard news about something bad happening once, the equivalent of which happens literally dozens of times a day in a war zone? That's disgusting and shows a lack of empathy.
I'd wonder if that's potentially uncharitable. The goal is evidently to indicate a preference against violence, and this is conveyed emotively and emotionally. People are imperfect. They have...
I'd wonder if that's potentially uncharitable. The goal is evidently to indicate a preference against violence, and this is conveyed emotively and emotionally. People are imperfect. They have imperfectly rational reactions to things. I think this comment's interpretation could benefit from attempting to understand intent and forgiving rhetorical devices that come so naturally to us, particularly when we're under stress.
If you truly believe that OP's post demonstrates they lack empathy, then fair enough, we disagree. I think a fairer interpretation would be that the post was an expression of despair. In that reaction they deserve our sympathy. If felt necessary perhaps one might gently try to provide perspective.
Condemnation can have a cost of its own. I do not imagine you intended to cause OP emotional distress with your own reaction in turn. I've no idea if that was the result, though I can imagine it may have been, and - from my reading - this is not a person who deserves that.
See, on one hand, I've been shot at and (at least attempted) blown up and before and all that... On the other hand, at least then I had an armored vehicle and bullet proof vest... And a machine...
See, on one hand, I've been shot at and (at least attempted) blown up and before and all that...
On the other hand, at least then I had an armored vehicle and bullet proof vest... And a machine gun.
Is the US dangerous? Undoubtedly. Is it as dangerous as, say, contested areas of Syria? No, probably not. As horrible as it feels to have to describe mass shootings to an elementary age child, also imagine having to explain to a similarly aged kid that you had to drop a hellfire missile on the place he works to afford bread for his family since his father died in a different day's fighting.
I do feel paranoid in traffic or in crowded places. I don't like my back to doors or windows. I do ocular patdowns and more than once have clocked a concealed piece outside of a holster...
But, like, it's not THAT bad. Don't get me wrong, it's bad, but also maybe it's also that I live in one of those places that frequently appears on 'most dangerous city' lists.
I grew up in Maine, and am refreshing pages waiting to make sure nobody I knew was caught up in this. This isn't something that happens there. Maine is consistently in the bottom three states for...
I grew up in Maine, and am refreshing pages waiting to make sure nobody I knew was caught up in this. This isn't something that happens there. Maine is consistently in the bottom three states for violent crime. If this can happen there, it can happen anywhere in the US.
Until we take decisive action against the gun problem this country has, this will keep happening.
At this point in time, the gun discussion is probably a dead end.... What we need is a massive overhaul in mental healthcare. This guy asked for help. He was committed (committed himself,...
At this point in time, the gun discussion is probably a dead end.... What we need is a massive overhaul in mental healthcare.
This guy asked for help. He was committed (committed himself, possibly? Not sure) for a couple weeks this past summer. He tried. He did what he could to stop this before it happened, and he was waved away. He's not the only one who reached out before breaking... San Ysidro was another, and I'm certain there were more like them.
Obviously this doesn't excuse his actions, but damn. This is what happens when there is no help, and removing the guns might save some lives, but it also makes it easier to ignore the people who just really need some help.
I feel anxiety dropping my kids off at elementary school every day knowing there is a chance of that. I know statistically that chance is low but it still gives me stress. I definitely understand...
I feel anxiety dropping my kids off at elementary school every day knowing there is a chance of that. I know statistically that chance is low but it still gives me stress. I definitely understand that feeling of "every person is a threat". Over the last 8 years or so I've felt significantly less safe in my own neighborhood as a non-white person who chooses to fly a pride flag outside my house. I wish I didn't feel unsafe walking past homes flying thin blue line flags or displaying political signs for right wing candidates.
I'm not sure what the solution is but our hyper divisive national politics situation sure isn't helping.
War zone comparison aside… The increase in mass shootings, the prevailing "every man for himself" attitude, decline of neighborhood connections (largely due to people having to move to where the...
War zone comparison aside…
The increase in mass shootings, the prevailing "every man for himself" attitude, decline of neighborhood connections (largely due to people having to move to where the jobs are, making everybody some degree of transient), and political hysteria all contribute to feeling a bit on edge constantly.
When I'm visiting another developed country for an extended period, this feeling lifts away and it's very noticeable — it lets me relax to an extent that I can’t in the US. As others have noted, statistically speaking the US isn't all that dangerous, but how much damage is the collective psyche sustaining from this dark cloud hanging over it? Even low level stress is bad if it's constant.
This is a great point. Mass shootings have become a sort of unintentional terrorism. Much more effective than any actual attempt at terrorism against the US. Even putting aside the fear aspect,...
This is a great point. Mass shootings have become a sort of unintentional terrorism. Much more effective than any actual attempt at terrorism against the US. Even putting aside the fear aspect, the politics have been a mess, polarization, rage, etc... No doubt it's having a significant effect on our society's psyche.
@CannibalisticApple it can't be fun to read some of the responses to your post, but take it as a strategy lesson. Without the hyperbole we might have ended up talking about more meaningful things like the above.
For what it's worth, I get that you were venting, which is not a time when anyone is measuring their words.
I feel so bad for OP. I don't think the level of vitriol is warranted at all for earnestly starting a conversation. Expressing oneself in a an unusally hyperbolic way for this particular community...
I feel so bad for OP. I don't think the level of vitriol is warranted at all for earnestly starting a conversation. Expressing oneself in a an unusally hyperbolic way for this particular community is a fairly minor "crime" in my book.
I’ve never been a war zone, but from what I’ve read, I’m pretty sure it’s worse.
The US is a very large country. Your likelihood of getting caught in one of these shootings is still much lower than dying in a car accident. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things you can do to increase your odds, but if your pessimistic thinking isn’t resulting in productive precautions, maybe it’s time to stop reading the news for a while?
Yeah, honestly, especially with what's happening in Israel/Palestine, this feels a bit disrespectful to people in warzones...
This seems to be true. There is a slideshow/PDF from UC Davis (sourced from NYTimes) that shows this chart on page 4. Homicide rates from firearms were generally higher in the 80s and 90s than in the past 10 years leading up to 2019 (the latest year in that chart). It shows some other interesting things, like comparing vehicle deaths to firearm related deaths (suicides and homicides together), and at what ages people of different ethnicities are most likely to be killed by firearm violence. It also shows death rates of males and females at different ages.
I was reading The Warriors recently and it was kind of shocking to think that a story about a gang in 1950s/1960s New York City ... didn't revolve around firearm crimes. Because there weren't nearly as many guns on the streets and in the hands of youths back then. What would the US be like now if people had social media back then? Would they be more informed? More scared? What would society be like during the Red Scare, post-Korean War, and in the lead up to the Vietnam War era?
What has changed to cause there to be so many more guns? How different is it actually?
Dramatically different. The number of households with guns has actually declined slowly over the last 40 years, but the number of guns per capita has gone way up. Estimates put the number at anywhere from 350 to 450 million guns in circulation in the US. Which is to say more guns than people. Making the US the world leader in guns per capita by a huge margin.
Ironically, gun control conversations are part of the reason for that. Every time gun control comes up in the national conversation, gun sales spike. There is every indication that (many) gun owners are extremely insecure about losing their guns, or the ability to buy certain guns.
Well there's a question. A lot has happened related to firearm tolerance, fear, and regulation and much of it in the late 50s and through the 1960s.
The Vietnam War happened, along with a draft that disproportionately affected the poor, disenfranchised (because they couldn't get a waiver), and black Americans (who at 11% of the US population comprised 16% of draftees and 23% of combat troops). The assassination of a sitting U.S. president (JFK). Civil rights protests, the assassination of Martin Luther King and the subsequent riots in 1968 including in Washington DC that triggered a curfew and the deployment of national guards troops. Movements promoting violence and generally a lot of anti-government sentiment both from the counter-culture movement and from violent groups. The deadliest shooting in US history to date occurring on a college campus. By the 1960s the American Mafia had also opened the doors to dealing in narcotics after a long, self-imposed prohibition (after the prohibition was lifted made men and even associates were forbidden from getting into cocaine, the dominant drug, but were allowed to sell it to black and Latino communities). Along with motorcycle clubs and other organizations getting into narcotics and firearms trafficking. there may have been a wider proliferation of hard drugs throughout the US (and to an extent a better awareness of addiction and its effects).
Corruption and opportunism led some troops in Vietnam to begin smuggling guns and money-making substances, such as heroin, using military transports. This may have contributed to an influx of drugs into the US and increased supply to outlaw motorcycle gangs, like the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (formally there's no apostrophe), who had been in the business of trafficking narcotics and firearms and are alleged to have been suppliers of heroin to rock groups (and their audiences) in the 1960s. I'm not sure when the Hells Angels MC began trafficking weapons or narcotics, but it seems like a departure from their origins in the late 1940s or early 1950s. But we know that the Gypsy Joker MC was formed in 1956 in San Bernardino, California and were involved in gang disputes with the HAMC along the west coast thereafter and became involved in drug trafficking and other organized crime. So these MCs were already established in money-making enterprises and as with many trafficking groups it's relatively easy to transition from one type of crime to another. Involvement in cross-over crimes among transnational traffickers is a very common thing today and we see human traffickers also trafficking weapons, narcotics, and high-value wildlife products such as ivory (PDF) and pangolin scales.
In 1968 the US Congress passed the Gun Control Act which reorganized the original entity regulating firearms (then a part of the IRS) and gave it the name Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division. It also created the baseline requirement of an FFL to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. By 1970 the US Congress was passing legislation to control substances and regulate them better, in 1971 Nixon called for a "war on drugs," and in 1972 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was spun off, making the weapons-regulating body distinct from the revenue bureau of the Treasury Department for the first time since 1886. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration was formed. So by 1973 we knew that all these things were a problem and the legislative and executive branches were creating some long-lasting policies to address these issues.
But why is gun violence bigger problem since the 1970s? Maybe because we haven't really addressed many of the underlying problems mentioned above and people are still reacting to fear and uncertainty about the future. Drug dealers feel a need to own firearms (largely protect themselves from others) and know that they're now breaking numerous federal laws by owning a firearm as well as illegal substances (btw it's illegal to have a medical marijuana card and own a firearm, too). Law enforcement methods have become increasingly militaristic and mistrustful of civilians. Since the 70s there has been a surge in focusing on prosecuting drug offenders (and lengthening sentences) as well as the creation of the for-profit prison industry. The war on drugs has seen a large proliferation of unserialized or unlicensed firearms throughout the US and its southern neighbors. Different government administrations and iterations of Congress flip flop on backing successes in countering the cocaine industry in the Americas (sometimes because they're simply not exciting successes -- like paying farmers to plant anything but coca, providing non-violent jobs to ex-cartel members, etc.). Oh, and in the US we've grandfathered-in gun ownership, so as long as you can get your hands on something before new legislation is passed, you can probably keep it (this is true of bans on automatics, assault rifles in Delaware, and pistol braces with appropriate paperwork).
This post is long enough and because @post_below touched on something already, I'll just post a link supporting their mention of the number of firearms:population of the US.
The likelihood is low, I'll give you that. But even with how low it technically is, it's disturbing how frequent it is given the sheer unpredictability. It's hard to name a type of business or location which hasn't been the target of a mass shooting.
Anyone who goes bowling in the coming weeks, good chance they're going to think about this. Anyone who goes to a music festival will think of Las Vegas. Movie theaters, Aurora. Grocery stores have Buffalo.
That isn't even people obsessing over it, it's just normal. It's a passing, casual thought, that some random stranger might walk inside with a gun. It's normal for kids to have active shooter drills in school, and learn to smear themselves with blood so the shooter will think they're dead. I saw a Winnie-the-Pooh book (not Disney, public domain) someone's kid brought home about what to do during a shooting, and that's just—damn. There's something REALLY wrong when we're at the point of teaching young kids about shooter situations with books like that.
The odds are low, and there are many other more likely ways we can suddenly die. But a random mass shooting feels far more horrific than other deaths.
War zones are worse in terms of carnage, and I did hesitate to use this title for that reason. But again, at least people in war zones KNOW they're in one and can be cautious. That's different from all of the lives randomly ended in a "peaceful" city and country by a single crazy person. Random acts of violence happen everywhere, but it can be on much larger and devastating scales in the US. And it's FAR too frequent compared to other countries.
This post is just me venting because it's just so frustrating how normal this is. There's not much people can do on an individual level beyond "never go outside," which I'm not going to do because I'm not that scared or anxious. And, like you said, the odds of me ever actually getting caught up in one are low. But I still hate I'm at a point where I can casually ponder the possibility of someone bursting through a door with a gun—emphasis on casually. I feel like I should be more horrified by even having that sort of thought, but no. It's normal to have this constant edge of paranoia.
It shouldn't be normal. We should be more horrified by these shootings, absolutely devastated and mourning alongside the victims, but we're at a point where we have to be a little numb with how common they are. There's something truly messed up when someone mentions a recent mass shooting and you have to ask "which one".
I get your point, but there's a better way to frame what you're trying to say.
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. It's disrespectful to the people whose lives are hell every single day. I can't believe you're saying the US is worse. I'm frankly disgusted by this post. Yes, the US has problems. Yes, we should try to make it better. No, saying that the US has it worse than the Gazans or Yemenis or Ukrainians have it is not acceptable.
I’m so tired of every political point turning into the most over exaggerated version of itself. People have over learned from social media the idea that the most extreme thing you can say is the most effective which might be true for engagement based algorithms but certainly not for real life and actual change.
Yeah this post is beyond trivializing the experiences of people living in active war zones. Beyond gun violence, the vast majority of US citizens don't have to actively worry about their access to food, clean water, or medical care. US citizens don't need to don't worry about their ability to travel beyond the country's borders, or if their passports will even be accepted elsewhere. US citizens don't have to worry about their economy and currency collapsing out of nowhere, wiping out all of their savings. US citizens don't have to worry about getting arrested by their government for speaking out or being conscripted into battle.
Gun violence is not the only thing that makes war horrific. You could argue there are plenty of US citizens who experience significant financial hardships that do restrict a lot of their freedoms, and you'd be right. But, for example, there's a huge difference between not being able to afford to see a doctor, and there being no doctors left within a hundred miles. There's a big difference between having to get drinking water from a public water fountain versus having to resort to drinking salt water.
Is "disgusted" a touch extreme? I mean, if the concern is trivialising and excessive communication....
No, absolutely not. Do you understand how awful it is to live in a warzone? To be in fear that your life will end literally any minute whether you're out or at home? Life is fucking horrifying in those places. To say that the US is worse because you were out shopping and heard news about something bad happening once, the equivalent of which happens literally dozens of times a day in a war zone? That's disgusting and shows a lack of empathy.
I'd wonder if that's potentially uncharitable. The goal is evidently to indicate a preference against violence, and this is conveyed emotively and emotionally. People are imperfect. They have imperfectly rational reactions to things. I think this comment's interpretation could benefit from attempting to understand intent and forgiving rhetorical devices that come so naturally to us, particularly when we're under stress.
If you truly believe that OP's post demonstrates they lack empathy, then fair enough, we disagree. I think a fairer interpretation would be that the post was an expression of despair. In that reaction they deserve our sympathy. If felt necessary perhaps one might gently try to provide perspective.
Condemnation can have a cost of its own. I do not imagine you intended to cause OP emotional distress with your own reaction in turn. I've no idea if that was the result, though I can imagine it may have been, and - from my reading - this is not a person who deserves that.
See, on one hand, I've been shot at and (at least attempted) blown up and before and all that...
On the other hand, at least then I had an armored vehicle and bullet proof vest... And a machine gun.
Is the US dangerous? Undoubtedly. Is it as dangerous as, say, contested areas of Syria? No, probably not. As horrible as it feels to have to describe mass shootings to an elementary age child, also imagine having to explain to a similarly aged kid that you had to drop a hellfire missile on the place he works to afford bread for his family since his father died in a different day's fighting.
I do feel paranoid in traffic or in crowded places. I don't like my back to doors or windows. I do ocular patdowns and more than once have clocked a concealed piece outside of a holster...
But, like, it's not THAT bad. Don't get me wrong, it's bad, but also maybe it's also that I live in one of those places that frequently appears on 'most dangerous city' lists.
I grew up in Maine, and am refreshing pages waiting to make sure nobody I knew was caught up in this. This isn't something that happens there. Maine is consistently in the bottom three states for violent crime. If this can happen there, it can happen anywhere in the US.
Until we take decisive action against the gun problem this country has, this will keep happening.
At this point in time, the gun discussion is probably a dead end.... What we need is a massive overhaul in mental healthcare.
This guy asked for help. He was committed (committed himself, possibly? Not sure) for a couple weeks this past summer. He tried. He did what he could to stop this before it happened, and he was waved away. He's not the only one who reached out before breaking... San Ysidro was another, and I'm certain there were more like them.
Obviously this doesn't excuse his actions, but damn. This is what happens when there is no help, and removing the guns might save some lives, but it also makes it easier to ignore the people who just really need some help.
I feel anxiety dropping my kids off at elementary school every day knowing there is a chance of that. I know statistically that chance is low but it still gives me stress. I definitely understand that feeling of "every person is a threat". Over the last 8 years or so I've felt significantly less safe in my own neighborhood as a non-white person who chooses to fly a pride flag outside my house. I wish I didn't feel unsafe walking past homes flying thin blue line flags or displaying political signs for right wing candidates.
I'm not sure what the solution is but our hyper divisive national politics situation sure isn't helping.
War zone comparison aside…
The increase in mass shootings, the prevailing "every man for himself" attitude, decline of neighborhood connections (largely due to people having to move to where the jobs are, making everybody some degree of transient), and political hysteria all contribute to feeling a bit on edge constantly.
When I'm visiting another developed country for an extended period, this feeling lifts away and it's very noticeable — it lets me relax to an extent that I can’t in the US. As others have noted, statistically speaking the US isn't all that dangerous, but how much damage is the collective psyche sustaining from this dark cloud hanging over it? Even low level stress is bad if it's constant.
This is a great point. Mass shootings have become a sort of unintentional terrorism. Much more effective than any actual attempt at terrorism against the US. Even putting aside the fear aspect, the politics have been a mess, polarization, rage, etc... No doubt it's having a significant effect on our society's psyche.
@CannibalisticApple it can't be fun to read some of the responses to your post, but take it as a strategy lesson. Without the hyperbole we might have ended up talking about more meaningful things like the above.
For what it's worth, I get that you were venting, which is not a time when anyone is measuring their words.
I feel so bad for OP. I don't think the level of vitriol is warranted at all for earnestly starting a conversation. Expressing oneself in a an unusally hyperbolic way for this particular community is a fairly minor "crime" in my book.