https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-matter-how-you-measure-them-mass-shooting-deaths-are-up/ suggests that there has been an upward trend.
They may be getting more attention because there is much less overall crime than in the 1980s to early 1990s, although mass shootings are still only a small portion of overall homicides. Back then, there was more other crime (including homicides) locally for local newspapers to fill their pages with.
I’ve been under treatment for depression and anxiety for most of my life now. I’m on several anti depressants and anti anxiety meds. I could easily walk into a store and buy a gun.
I haven’t seen a gun in over a week now and it’s been so nice. Back home, I regularly see people walking into stores and restaurants with guns and it makes me incredibly anxious.
Also there is a difference between mass shootings like this and Chicago, Detroit, etc violence. Most mass shootings like these are completely random. Chicago et al is more targeted. That doesn’t make the victims’ lives any less valuable, but there is a logic to why we are far more scared of random shootings.
Another way of putting that last is: we all worry that we might get shot and staying out of Chicago lessens the chance immeasurably.
Close to my sixth decade - all of them in states know for packing guns - and have yet to see anyone other than a cop obviously carrying. Different paths, I guess.
@catahoula That is the misnomer about Chicago, staying out of Chicago does not lessen the chance immeasurably, staying out of certain areas of Chicago does lessen the chance but not Chicago as a whole.
I travel to Chicago for work 5 days a week, along with about 300,000 others (just on the train) and that daily venture to Chicago does not heighten my chances of being shot. I would argue that I am more likely to be shot in my affluent suburb than I am to be shot in Chicago and I am in Chicago over 70% of the days in the year.
The Chicago violence is not something that crosses my mind. It is fairly isolated in a couple of areas and those 300,000 daily commuters have no reason to go to those areas. The current administration makes it seem as though Chicago is the wild west and there is a gun toting bad guy around every corner but it is just not the case. St. Louis has a higher per capita homicide figure and has a similar population (311,000) to the population of suburban commuters to Chicago. Your logic would indicate that to lessen the chance of being shot it would be advantageous for everyone to move out of St. Louis and leave it a ghost town, as it is much more dangerous than people giving up their commute to Chicago.
I don’t mean to single you out but the misinformation about Chicago really rubs me the wrong way when painted with the broad brush and seems awfully close to the fake news line.
More than 50% of gun deaths are suicides. It would be better for everyone if we had a more comprehensive evaluation and background check that included psychological detail. Can I wave my magic wand and come up with a perfect test for that? No, but we can figure something out that works far better than doing little or nothing.
And, all these diversions and “what about Chicago” stuff that pops up in these discussions reminds me of the excuses I would make to people who wanted me to stop smoking way back when. Anything to derail the focus of discussion…
(quote)… staying out of certain areas of Chicago does lessen the chance…(/quote)
If we can believe the per capita homicide rankings by city that I found, Chicago is 9th of major cities… for some time period or another. Assume that’s for the city limits and that makes it safer than 8 others.
Agree with your point, though - frequent certain areas of certain cities, and your chance of being a principal in a homicide are measurably real.
Your chance of being a victim of a mass shooting that doesn’t involve these areas? The ones listed in a previous post and everywhere else? Lost in statistical background noise.
It is highly unlikely one will die in a mass shooting. It is near certain, however, that one will be subject to various searches and procedures needed to deter such mass shootings, including frequent lockdown drills in schools. Moreover, since Columbine, over 200,000 schoolchildren in grades k-12 have been present when a shooting has occurred on their campus (Washington post).
Aren’t you all appalled that generations of American kids will be trained for lockdowns? Can’t we do better by our kids?
It’s not acceptable state of affairs to me.
Already happened! I was just there for a conference. Downtown STL is the oddest place I’ve been to in a long time. Large buildings, fairly clean, no people! We were approached by panhandlers several times a day – all had a complete story and a specific amount of money they needed (e.g. $8.42). Most intersections had police cams above, with their red and blue blinking LEDs. Traffic was always light and didn’t really change from weekend to weekday.
BTW, on a GIS technoweenie note, comparing stats for cities based on population isn’t informative because the “population” of a city varies significantly based on how you define its borders. For example, Atlanta itself has a relatively small population of around 500,000. The ATL Metro has around 10X that.
There is St. Louis, the city and St. Louis the county. They are two separate entities. St. Louis city has high crime rate. I’m not sure how that number would change if the whole metro area is included. One of the safest cities in Missouri is Town and Country, which is just a few miles from downtown.
^I think they meant just St Louis the city.
The comments about St. Louis and Atlanta being more than just the “city of” can be said about Chicago as well and that is my issue. Obviously the city of Chicago is what gets trotted out when all of the discussion comes up around gun violence so a comparison to the city of St. Louis makes sense. What gets lost is that Chicago, as large as it is, can easily be broken up, the same way, without even speaking to suburbs.
West Garfield Park (Chicago defined neighborhood) had 139 murders per 100,000 residents and Lincoln Park had 1.5 per 100,000 residents. These neighborhoods are less than 5 miles apart (as the crow flies) less than half the distance between St. Louis and Town & Country. Hermosa has 0 murders per 100,000 and is less than 3 miles from West Garfield Park.
It comes back to the fact that it is never reported how isolated the gun violence is in Chicago, the entire city takes the bad rap. There are 14 neighborhoods with over 50 murders per 100,000 residents and there are 19 neighborhoods with 0 murders per 100,000. Overall the neighborhood at the midpoint is 11.9 murders per 100,000 residents which breaks down to about 0.01% of residents are killed at the midpoint; I would say overall the city of Chicago is safer than many, as long as you avoid 15-20 neighborhoods.
---- …I would say overall the city of Chicago is safer than many, as long as you avoid 15-20 neighborhoods.
Those neighborhoods, along with similar neighborhoods in the eight cities ahead of Chicago on the list, are the problem.
Unless one believes that some lives matter more than others, there ought to be more threads about solving that problem. Hmm… maybe at least as many as there are of “another day, another mass shooting” threads that seem to only find murders outside of major urban areas fascinating.