Thank you for posting to r/OrphanCrushingMachine! Please reply to this comment with a short explanation of why you think your submission fits OCM. Please be specific, if possible. Otherwise, your post may be removed.
To anyone reading who disagrees with OP, try to avoid Ad Hominem attacks. Criticise the idea, not the person.
"Legally" is a pretty big stretch but I get that in effect, it doesn't really matter, unfortunately. But we need to call things what they are, because accuracy is crucial when the day comes that this is yet another blight on our terrible history.
I'm so sorry... obviously first and foremost for the kidnapped folks and their families, but white people need to get it through our thick-ass skulls that this will decimate communities as well as industries.
I'm from a small but major tourist destination that relies heavily on seasonal workers from Brazil & Jamaica primarily - the area got hit HARD by the heroin & opioid "crisis", in addition to being unable to retain youth (both since there's fuck-all to do during the off-season). I shudder to think what the 2026 season will be like for everyone involved. Ultimately the only people really not impacted will be the filthy rich tourists who will tut tut about how "it used to be so nice here, dahling, perhaps we should sell and obtain a new summer home in the Keys" 🤦🏼♀️
I also put "0" in quotes, because "0" isn't a number, it's a symbol for the actual number of shootings. See what I did thar! Kyleh for president of the DOJ! I promise you will believe that there is justice!
Well it probably is but they almost certainly weren't trying to redesign schools and education at large to prepare children to be in an active shooter situation yet.
Turns out it's not 100% daily, but there's perhaps one or two days a month where there isn't one
Our definition of gun violence is intended to be fully inclusionary of disparate elements of gun related incidents...in that, all types of shootings are included, whether OIS, accidental, children shooting themselves, murders, armed robberies, familicide, mass shootings, DGU, Home Invasions, drivebys and everything else. We derive our definitions from CDC, FBI, NIH, and other organizations who have established standards.
Only by being totally inclusionary in our definitions is our data accurate, allowing the researcher to decide which parts of the complete dataset they need for their work. Our goal is to provide a complete picture of impact. Users then glean what they need from the whole. We intentionally have no GVA POV on the subject... but put in more real terms, GVA is against gun violence, not guns or gun owners and in that we strive to provide an unbiased, complete view of the subject.
So out of the 25 most recent "school shootings" there wasn't a single death and only 1 injury?
I think that site might be using a pretty generous definition of what a school shooting is that definitely doesn't line up with what people think when they hear that the US has "daily school shootings"
Our definition of gun violence is intended to be fully inclusionary of disparate elements of gun related incidents...in that, all types of shootings are included, whether OIS, accidental, children shooting themselves, murders, armed robberies, familicide, mass shootings, DGU, Home Invasions, drivebys and everything else. We derive our definitions from CDC, FBI, NIH, and other organizations who have established standards.
Only by being totally inclusionary in our definitions is our data accurate, allowing the researcher to decide which parts of the complete dataset they need for their work. Our goal is to provide a complete picture of impact. Users then glean what they need from the whole. We intentionally have no GVA POV on the subject... but put in more real terms, GVA is against gun violence, not guns or gun owners and in that we strive to provide an unbiased, complete view of the subject.
Yea I'm aware of their definition, but I think it's disingenuous of you and the OP for not adding context to the claim that school shootings happen every day in the US. Because it's commonly understood that a "school shooting" is an active shooter situation at a school. It's irresponsible not to clarify that this database isn't describing that.
I think most people will accept that the very presence of a gun on a school campus is unacceptable. Sure, yes, I should disclaim this distinction, but we're nitpicking while the flames of the pit of hell lick our feet anyway.
I think most people will accept that the very presence of a gun on a school campus is unacceptable.
Yea but that's not a justifiable reason to mislead people. Being misleading just hurts any credibility in your narrative. How can I trust any solution you might propose when I can't even trust you to accurately describe the problem?
The point is that a lot of these school shootings didn't even happen on a school, if a shooting happens within a certain distance of a school they're still going to count it as a school shooting under this methodology.
Well duh, otherwise how would we ever fight an oppressive government that we would absolutely 100% eagerly square up against should that ever happen in the US, not that we'd likely ever have the sort of government that would beat down and arrest citizens for free speech or kidnap innocent people off the streets or shoot them in their beds or anything like that.
The sweet irony that the biggest gun nuts in the US "because muh will fight big gubernment" are also ardent embracers of fascism
Not like that would change much though. You don't break through a M1 Abrams with an AR-15. You don't shoot down an F-35 with an AR-15. It's just good at killing people
(And as a reminder, the US like to portray its opponents as some sort of backward savages, but for exemple Vietnam was extremely well equipped, state of the art fighter jets like the Mig-21, ground to air missiles, an actual army with a ton of heavy equipment. The myth of "peasants in sandals defeating the US military" is just a myth - they were well equipped and still bled millions of lives to kick the US out)
You are conflating the Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN) with the National Liberation Front (NLF). The later being better known as the Viet Cong (an insult made up by imperialist forces). The NLF fought a guerilla war against US forces using booby traps, small scale ambushes and every small arm they could get their hands on.
You couldn't be bothered to read a single Wikipedia article or you're lying. Neither speak highly of your character, motives or integrity.
There are numerous examples of actual guerilla forces carrying out irregular wars using very limited arsenals. The most famous in America is probably the IRA.
The NLF were essentially wiped out during the war though. The casualties were utterly lopsided. The PAVN wasn't and even had to fill in its ranks.
As for the IRA, this is from a time where the tank and planes had barely begun existing and they weren't deployed by the british against them anyway. I don't think any example from before the ~1960s are relevant.
The exemples where an underequipped military actually militarily defeated a technologically superior force are exceedingly rare. Dragging out the conflict sure, but in casualty rates utterly lopsided. Good enough if your plan is to kick out an invader when the war becomes too unpopular, but insufficient to win a civil war where no side can "go home". And notice that in case where an underequipped force wins over the technologically superior force - either it had significant foreign support (best recent exemple would be syria, although honestly by 2024 the SAA didn't really have that much heavy equipment left operational), or were foreign wars, not civil wars. You can make the enemy leave by making the war too costly, but it will always be far costlier for the resistance. A certain middle eastern conflict that shall not be named comes to mind.
Closest example for civil wars would be Myanmar I guess but that was has been going on for almost 5 years and the rebels are still nowhere near winning any of the major cities yet, and the myanmar military is significantly weaker than the US military. I do expect the rebels to eventually win (but then succumb to a new civil war between themselves probably) but that is still many years away and depends more on foreign factors than internal ones. And again, we're talking about an army that has like, 100 operational fighter planes. The US has thousands, far more advanced ones.
Anyway. Point is. Water guns (AR-15s) aren't gonna be what's going to defeat the US military. Only the US military splitting and shooting on itself would be enough, and if the current news about the double taps on venezuelan boats are to be believed, I'm not expecting them to resist illegal orders that much. Besides that, you could have underground campaigns sure but that would take years if not decades to have an effect. You mentionned the IRA (I'm sure in the war of independance context), but if we go to the troubles period, it still took DECADES for something to happen. And while the UK was thoroughly f'd up I don't think it can even compare to what the lunatics in charge of the US are ready to do.
EDIT: oh yeah and honestly insults right from the get go, very curiously defensive about the naming convention of communist forces, tankie spotted I won't engage further
The irony of them implying the Viet Cong only fought with rifles and booby traps (they also used mortars, machine guns, RPGs), and implying they had large tactical success (when their success was more strategical/political) while accusing you of never reading a Wikipedia article.
We've spent countless billions or trillions on fun new toys and the logistics to set up a burger king, pizza hut, and air field anywhere on the planet in a couple days.
I am pretty sure us beat the vietnamese military with ease. there is no way America could lose in a conventional war its weakness is guerilla warfare and it has been proved multiple times in history (forgive me if i am wrong)
But wasant rolling thunder no big deal for us as they had massive production and logistical support while vc dealt mpore political and psychological damage (sorry if i am wrong i am not taking pro or anti gun sides here but just asking something from history in fact i am not even american but just cuz its about vietnam i was intrested)
Guns need to go but we shot ourselves in the foot (pun intended) by enshrining gun rights in our constitution.
However you think it should be interpreted our supreme Court interpreted it the way it is currently being used.
The issue now is that even if we could overturn it, which would require Congress and the Senate to pass it, the president to sign it, and 2/3 of the states would have to ratify it which wouldn't happen.
If we passed some way of allowing it to happen without that 2/3 vote, which wed ironically need to get to pass such a bill, then we run the risk of our first amendment (freedom of speech) and our fourth amendment (freedom from unwarranted search and seizure) being repealed as well as soon as we have some crazy right wing nut (that could never happen right?)
Unfortunately much of modern society relies on people just following rules and norms which is clearly out the window.
Well, only half of America believes this. There’s a phrase commonly touted by American conservatives that says, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. They want to arm already drastically underpaid teachers and put more guns into our schools. The other half of the country actually cares about the lives of children and mental healthcare access.
It’s interesting that the vast majority of gun sales are for private use, rather than any militia or territorial defense
Unorganized partisans are ineffective, but local organizations can utilize AT/AA, prevent oppression, and can’t effectively oppress others. Then it’d be possible to manage the sheer number of weapons present already.
"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Yet despite Charlie's words, republicans have politicised his death.
The swiss and finns have a tons of gun per capita too but very few shootings. Not quite US level but still very high.
It comes down to a lot of things, but legislation and culture does a lot. For exemple, their army rifles, they can't use the ammo. And well, they went through army training, it's not random teens. And again, culture. American culture glorifies violence, individualism makes people way more disconnected and prone to mental illnesses and copycatting violent events.
It's too easy to say it's just the guns. But at the same time, if your culture leads to morons shooting each other on an hourly basis (generous here...), then maybe they shouldn't be provided with guns so easily... And there have been exemples of extremely succesfull gun buybacks, like Australia after the Port Arthur massacre. But again, I have 0 faith whatsoever the American gun nuts would EVER do the right thing.
American culture glorifies violence, individualism
More importantly, it cultivates fear.
For centuries, Americans have been conditioned to be afraid that someone will take their shit. Look at old Western films. It's always a POC or immigrant trying to steal from the WASP. Native Americans, Chinese, Irish, Germans, Mexicans etc.
Conservatism and xenophobia go hand-in-hand, because conservative politics are all fear-based.
Ehhh I think it's a good point but also not sufficient at all. War movies and western movies are/were popular just the same in Europe after all, even though you just don't see these violent outbursts
Im no sociologist/anthropologist whatsoever so everything from here is mostly just speculation. But to me culture is a lot more informal than just the "visible stuff" you would get from movies. It's the way people talk to each other, the way they interact. You mention these movies for exemple but the entire US has them, yet you see this propensity for violence isn't equally distributed. And also what I mentionned with europe.
On the other hand, it sure does feed one another. The "local culture" influencing movies, which in turn influence people's preconceptions. But again, it's not like Swiss or Finns don't have access to these movies either. But despite the movies, in their cultures, guns are treated differently. I can't speak for them since I'm from Belgium but what I know is that guns are more rarely something people will boast about to absolutely everyone else. It's not like they don't have gun enjoyers, but rarely people who make their whole personnalities about it. So that's what I mean by the fact the local cultures influence things, but it's a lot less tangible than what you can see from the outside. Even if you somehow removed war movies, westerns, etc... from circulation, the problem wouldn't dissipate. It's far deeper rooted than that.
maybe it's not good to give a weapon of mass destruction to anyone, maybe swords are a fair trade off, these serve the same function and in close combat (the one that happens when you are getting robbed inside your house) it is as if not more effective than most guns.
I believe the US population is desensitized to what guns are, a single man with a single gun is enough to force their will into everyone in sight, knife vs knife is known by everyone to be a lose-lose, and so you don't see much deaths from these interactions, gun vs gun is different, there's no draw, you have to kill them faster than they kill you, leading to emotional murders rather than self-defense.
What do you mean, they're doing a lot to prevent it? Haven't you seen blackboards that can act as bulletproof shields? Then someone also made bulletproof backpacks as well. Metal detectors at doors. And having armed guards in schools. Unfortunately, it seemed like introducing more guns into schools didn't solve the issue; then it dawned on them, how could they be so stupid to think more guns could solve this? The solution is obviously, that the amount of guns wasn't enough, so now there's the initiative to arm teachers. Oddly enough, this hasn't worked out either, which can only mean one thing: that there still aren't enough guns in school.
My team and I have suggested to introduce turrets in school that guns down perpetrators. It uses ChatGPT to identify potential bad guys with guns, we're currently looking for investors. So far we're at about a 92% accuracy in controlled test environments, and we're positive we can get it to about 96-97%.
We've also looked into what we called interior disguised guns; we recently saw the Willy Wonka movie and were inspired by the scene where "everything was chocolate", and thought, what if everything was guns? Door handle? Nope, it's a gun. Stapler? Maybe, it could also be, a gun. Open a book? Bang, you're dead bad guy. Flushing the toilet? Got you, it was a shotgun.
The mass shooter phenomenon comes from a right wing, online based, domestic terrorist movement. The manifestos share are as long as they are because they copy/paste from previous manifestos. They also contain the process of how the mass shooter picked their target and prepared for the attack in advance. Yes, they are sharing "best practices".
Why isn't anything being done? Did I mention it was a RIGHT WING domestic terrorist movment?
The NRA has pumped billions of dollars into lobbying groups that have successfully blocked almost all inquiries into gun violence as a whole in a government capacity, and then subsequently argued that because there is "no evidence to support that it's a problem", they do nothing, and go about their day.
If they didn't do that, the Democrats would very likely have passed some kind of comprehensive gun laws like licensed carry only, registering ammunition and all firearms like a car or vehicle, and requiring gun safety courses to earn the license. The Republicans oppose this because they sometimes placate to their base, who are nearly unanimously pro gun, and called it "an attack on their freedoms" to which Republicans have been repeating the same tired bs of "they want to take your guns and your jobs!!" for decades.
As an American, I have no logical answer. Charlie Kirk was the most honest about it “unfortunate deaths are a necessity to maintain our second amendment rights.” Fuck Kirk, but he said the quiet part out loud. “My individual right to firearms is more important than a child’s right to live”
Because mental healthcare is taboo, and because nobody in the working class has access to healthcare in the first place, then you add all the guns everywhere and it’s a recipie for violenece
I'll tl;dr this at the end, but I'll explain as best I can.
There are multiple lobbying groups (most notably the NRA, the National Rifle Association) which vehemently opposed any form of legislation to limited access to firearms, and the NRA is a staunch ally of the Republican party. The Republican party is the political party currently in the White House and also currently with a majority in Congress and Senate.
Any time there is a major school shooting in the US, the Democrats (the other major political party in the US) float the Brady Bill, a bill designed to implement better gun control laws. This pisses off the NRA and the Republicans, who then fight it tooth and nail to ensure that nothing changes. Generally, the Republicans, NRA, and other gun advocacy groups cite the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are a lot of arguments on this subject--the pro-gun crowd argue that it means everyone should have access to guns (there are certain restrictions based on age, mental illness, and criminal history--and some people want even those restrictions gone), and those in favor of gun control usually cite that at the time the document was written guns were much less efficient killing machines, that the gulf between the military hardware available to a hypothetical tyranous government renders the kinds of firearms civilians can purchase sort of irrelevant, that "well regulated Militia" does itself imply regulation is necessary, or that a well regulates Militia is reflective of the national guard of each state rather than a private citizen's gun ownership.
Tl;dr there are multiple powerful advocacy groups which value guns over the lives of children, and those powerful groups support, and are supported by, the political party currently running the country.
To quote the late Charlie Kirk (may he rest in piss): "I think it's worth it, unfortunately, to have some gun deaths every single year, so that we can protect our other god-given rights".
That's right, unitedstatians genuinely believe sacrificing all those children to the altar of the 2nd amendment is worth it.
Boils down to a civic gun cult paired with pervasive, extreme alienation. Add to that a culture of violence and fame and you got yourself repeated, unaddressed mass violence against the most vulnerable in society.
The US has a LOT of gun per capita, but many other countries do and they don't have this problem. It's a factor but not the whole story.
Distrust of government regulation. Along with 2a, there's a fear that criminals will have guns while citizens will be defenseless. Also states have the ability to make their own rules, so one heavily regulated state may be adjacent to one with looser rules. Also many laws have come about purely to regulate a certain group. Like with Reagan making laws bc of the Black Panthers.
Not saying that's what I believe, but that's some concerns others have.
An example of the states making their own laws being an issue is that IL fairly has strict gun laws (for the US). Less than 50% of the guns used in crime in IL come from ILLINOIS. Most come from Indiana which has weak gun laws.
Yeah until the laws are federal, legislating it is kind of hard to get public support. I like how states have a lot of independence, but there's many drawbacks like this.
The answer to that is those who vote Republican and those who don't vote. That's why we have 300 or so school shootings a year; Vehemently oppose any level of gun control and cut funding to Healthcare, including mental health services, and this is what you get. We are so great again. The sacrifice of child lives is apparently worth owning the libs, giving tax cuts to billionaires, and getting rid of those pesky brown people.
Because morons see the second amendment and don’t wanna loose their guns. The 2nd amendment was added to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship and controlling the masses. It was to be an “equalizer” against an over bearing government. But when that was written they didn’t have jets, worships with nukes and drones. Yet there are loads of “gravy seals” who think they could oppose the government and its army. Yet these same morons mostly voted for the current administration which is doing just that, and they don’t give a fuck.
But that’s the thing about the American constitution, it’s a living document. Meaning you can change details with…. AMENDMENTS. So we could change the gun laws. But people are fucking stupid here.
There’s an amendment that says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court is in charge of determining if state laws are compliant with the constitution and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The court is made of 9 judges, with one being named as Chief Justice. They are appointed by presidents, approved by the senate, and serve for life. This court is made of 6 judges who were appointed by a Republican and 3 that were appointed by a Democrat. Unfortunately, the justices have stoped calling balls and strikes and now adhere much more closely to political ideology.
This version of the court is dominated by strict constitutionalists. That is to say that they believe that the founders chose their words carefully and we should match their letter and intent when determining if laws are constitutional or not. Let’s go back to that amendment now: at the time it was written, the U.S. did not have a standing army. Our collective defense was successfully shouldered by citizen militias who rose up to fight the most powerful nation in the world. The hope was by protecting the rights of farmers to keep muskets, we’d be able to quickly raise an army if attacked. We’ve come a long way from that and those six justices refuse to acknowledge that technological progress and systemic changes should be considered. Long story short, they overturn gun control laws constantly.
The other side of this issue is that liberals don’t know what the fuck we’re talking about when it comes to guns because we don’t own any. Case in point: you may have heard that assault weapons should be singled out and banned because school shooters keep using AR-15 assault weapons. What you might not hear too much is that there’s no major difference in the lethality of an AR-15 rifle and a similar rifle that lacks a few cosmetic features. Removing those features removes that weapon from the “assault weapons” category. If you want to do the most good, you’d want all hand guns to evaporate like a fart in the wind, but that’s not a conversation most Americans are prepared to have.
There's currently a multi billion dollar industry surrounding school shootings so nothings getting done because rich people are (probably) buying politicians so they can sell bandaids for the bullet holes.
Here in canada the last school shooting i can remember is Dawson College.
That was in 2006.
Looking at the list, the last one with over 5 victims, which if i can remember right is the US benchmark for what is a school shooting, is Polytechnique... in 1989.
The counting is also somewhat dubious too. It has a very broad definition for "school shooting". There are not 300 active shooters inside a school while they are in session. Some of them, they count people adjacent to schools. Others will count stray bullets that are near the property. They will count brandishing, accidental discharge, or even bringing one on campus. It's not a perfect science. It is why it is always important to understand the data and how it is obtained. That's not to say that there isn't an issue. There is.
36 school weeks or ~180 days. More than 1/day (1.7, rounded). That's if there's 300.
That obviously doesn't include other incidents like knives. When I was in school we had bomb threats once every 4 or so years because a high school senior thought it'd be an easy way to get out of school. The one when I was in 6th or 7th grade was so bad they had metal detectors and cops searching our bags on our way in though, so there's been a longer hiatus. We were a rural redneck school, and it doesn't seem like the fake bomb threats are actually the norm. The dumb way kids got us out of classes when I was in high school was slashing the bus tires.
Edit: did some digging, looks like there's no longer that longer hiatus. Last one was a vague threat two years ago.
The way the statistic is counted is prone to bloat and counts any discharge of a fire arm on school grounds as a school shooting
That includes instances of people unaliving themselves in the parking lot or a cop NDing his pistol
The majority of that statistic are incidences like the above
However. There still way too fucking msny and the fact there are so many guns on school grounds for there to be this many accidental shootings is ludicrous
they don’t happen daily. so far in 2025 there have been 16 reported injuries or deaths from gunfire on school grounds and 222 reported total incidents of gunfire. Unacceptable numbers for sure, but it would be basically very different if it was a daily occurance.
Umm, your math is a little fuzzy here. There is no school on the weekends, holidays, summer break, etc. That makes the total number of school days average about 180 give or take a couple days, depending on the state or district. Just using your own numbers here: there were only 16 fatalities or injuries out of a total of 222 reported gunfire incidents on school grounds. That still means in 2025 there was a school shooting incident, on average 1.23 times per school day, and the year isn't even over. Just because someone didn't actually get shot most of the times doesn't mean it isn't a serious danger and quite traumatic for students and teachers who have to worry whether it will be their school that has to go into lockdown that day.
In Poland we had one school shooting with two people injured a few years back and it's still big news. In the US nobody talks about a school shooting if 50 people don't die.
Nah, the onion is a satire publication and Pamphlets is usually just engagement baiting on twitter, I think it's one guy. Don't get me wrong though, I like the account.
I love it when "news" outlets try to flex things that should just be fucking standard. I also expect these idiots to post shit like "hey no.babies we're thrown into a wood chipper today!" Like yeah it's fucking hope not.
Thank you for posting to r/OrphanCrushingMachine! Please reply to this comment with a short explanation of why you think your submission fits OCM. Please be specific, if possible. Otherwise, your post may be removed.
To anyone reading who disagrees with OP, try to avoid Ad Hominem attacks. Criticise the idea, not the person.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
They actually amended this post, and said that there was a “small school shooting” in California.
Oh just a small one, as a treat?
It was a low-calorie school shooting, just enough to tide you over until the big one at dinner time.
Yeah only like 2 people died i think ! Thats bi-
Insanely horrifying tbh. I don’t wanna make a joke out of this
Well, it takes 3 to be a mass shooting so I guess it still stands
Yeah I guess
Atleast it gives us a break of thinking of the masked unidentifiable men that can legally kidnap you and traffic you to a black site in El Salvador
"Legally" is a pretty big stretch but I get that in effect, it doesn't really matter, unfortunately. But we need to call things what they are, because accuracy is crucial when the day comes that this is yet another blight on our terrible history.
My town had nearly a full sweep of workers taken just like that... you'll never guess what happened to the place after it had nobody to run it anymore
I'm so sorry... obviously first and foremost for the kidnapped folks and their families, but white people need to get it through our thick-ass skulls that this will decimate communities as well as industries.
I'm from a small but major tourist destination that relies heavily on seasonal workers from Brazil & Jamaica primarily - the area got hit HARD by the heroin & opioid "crisis", in addition to being unable to retain youth (both since there's fuck-all to do during the off-season). I shudder to think what the 2026 season will be like for everyone involved. Ultimately the only people really not impacted will be the filthy rich tourists who will tut tut about how "it used to be so nice here, dahling, perhaps we should sell and obtain a new summer home in the Keys" 🤦🏼♀️
Was that a Christianity reference lol
lol, no. I could be mis-remembering but I believe the legal definition of a mass shooting is three or more deaths.
Well it was one victim, so...
That is literally the argument for calling it a small school shooting (their words), because it doesn't qualify as a mass shooting yet
The US can have a little school shooting, as a treat
Fun sized
Just enough to keep the streak going. No need to report it.
A streak is and insane way to put it, thats like saying 9/11 happened to keep their score up in tony hawk pro skater
Maybe they did need to treat someone after.
It was a homeschool /s
Was it a nursery school?
p.s. I hate the fact that it's become so commonplace that I can make a sarcastic joke about it. 😕
"0"* school shootings in the last 5 minutes!
(* 80% margin of error)
So 0 margin of error then
I also put "0" in quotes, because "0" isn't a number, it's a symbol for the actual number of shootings. See what I did thar! Kyleh for president of the DOJ! I promise you will believe that there is justice!
So, a diet school shooting?
School Shooting Zero.
I don't understand that nobody make a site with "how many school shooting today in the USA"
There is one!
Leenk
what happened in 1996 only like 17 shootings all year but a high number of wounded or fatalities
They just shot people better back in the day. I'm already going to hell might as well use my time making fun of school shooters ig
You actually might be onto something. If president killers are that bad in the us, what can you except of mere school shooters
Fwiw shooting presidents isn't wildly successful either. Especially since if you survive like Roosevelt or Trump you've got the campaign of a lifetime
[deleted]
Yeah they shot him right in the speech. Like they shot his notes, for that speech. He took it and fucking ran
But if it's true then it's true...
Well it probably is but they almost certainly weren't trying to redesign schools and education at large to prepare children to be in an active shooter situation yet.
That reminds me of The Onion keeping on reposting this article: https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-regularly-happens/
What shooting occurred?
https://abc7news.com/amp/post/phillip-sala-burton-academic-school-shooting-1-student-shot-stable-condition-official-says/18241548/
Damn, that school has a total minority enrollment of 98%.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/san-francisco-unified-school-district/phillip-and-sala-burton-academic-high-school-3269
Crazy.
"A few small school shootings"
I was about to say how surprising that is (no shootings) for a supermoon. People were driving like nutcakes out there tonight.
Wait is it genuinely a stat that US has daily shootings?
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/school-shootings
Turns out it's not 100% daily, but there's perhaps one or two days a month where there isn't one
So out of the 25 most recent "school shootings" there wasn't a single death and only 1 injury?
I think that site might be using a pretty generous definition of what a school shooting is that definitely doesn't line up with what people think when they hear that the US has "daily school shootings"
Yea I'm aware of their definition, but I think it's disingenuous of you and the OP for not adding context to the claim that school shootings happen every day in the US. Because it's commonly understood that a "school shooting" is an active shooter situation at a school. It's irresponsible not to clarify that this database isn't describing that.
I think most people will accept that the very presence of a gun on a school campus is unacceptable. Sure, yes, I should disclaim this distinction, but we're nitpicking while the flames of the pit of hell lick our feet anyway.
Yea but that's not a justifiable reason to mislead people. Being misleading just hurts any credibility in your narrative. How can I trust any solution you might propose when I can't even trust you to accurately describe the problem?
Fixed
The point is that a lot of these school shootings didn't even happen on a school, if a shooting happens within a certain distance of a school they're still going to count it as a school shooting under this methodology.
i think its was around 350+ on 2024 so technically not everyday, so a little more than 34 times every 5 weeks.
Aaaaaand it’s gone
A light dusting of school shooting.
B R U H
Wait... Was the shooting small... Or the school... Or the pupils?
They've issued a correction after this post got noted. There was a school shooting in San Francisco
Aah. Well, nevertheless.
Never done less.
Wait, you really have those DAILY? I thought it was only super common
Not an American but the US has over 300 school shootings a year, in 2024 only like 39 actually resulted in injuries or death
Theres 36 school weeks in the us btw, so that's more than 1 per week on average
39 is significantly more than the entire rest of the world combined btw, several times more actually
Why do they continue to do nothing about it?
They think owning as many guns as you want with as few background checks as possible is more important than keeping children safe
Well duh, otherwise how would we ever fight an oppressive government that we would absolutely 100% eagerly square up against should that ever happen in the US, not that we'd likely ever have the sort of government that would beat down and arrest citizens for free speech or kidnap innocent people off the streets or shoot them in their beds or anything like that.
The sweet irony that the biggest gun nuts in the US "because muh will fight big gubernment" are also ardent embracers of fascism
Not like that would change much though. You don't break through a M1 Abrams with an AR-15. You don't shoot down an F-35 with an AR-15. It's just good at killing people
(And as a reminder, the US like to portray its opponents as some sort of backward savages, but for exemple Vietnam was extremely well equipped, state of the art fighter jets like the Mig-21, ground to air missiles, an actual army with a ton of heavy equipment. The myth of "peasants in sandals defeating the US military" is just a myth - they were well equipped and still bled millions of lives to kick the US out)
Until the NRA is fighting for my rights to MANPADS, I'll know they aren't really serious.
Your Vietnam example is telling.
You are conflating the Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN) with the National Liberation Front (NLF). The later being better known as the Viet Cong (an insult made up by imperialist forces). The NLF fought a guerilla war against US forces using booby traps, small scale ambushes and every small arm they could get their hands on.
You couldn't be bothered to read a single Wikipedia article or you're lying. Neither speak highly of your character, motives or integrity.
There are numerous examples of actual guerilla forces carrying out irregular wars using very limited arsenals. The most famous in America is probably the IRA.
The NLF were essentially wiped out during the war though. The casualties were utterly lopsided. The PAVN wasn't and even had to fill in its ranks.
As for the IRA, this is from a time where the tank and planes had barely begun existing and they weren't deployed by the british against them anyway. I don't think any example from before the ~1960s are relevant.
The exemples where an underequipped military actually militarily defeated a technologically superior force are exceedingly rare. Dragging out the conflict sure, but in casualty rates utterly lopsided. Good enough if your plan is to kick out an invader when the war becomes too unpopular, but insufficient to win a civil war where no side can "go home". And notice that in case where an underequipped force wins over the technologically superior force - either it had significant foreign support (best recent exemple would be syria, although honestly by 2024 the SAA didn't really have that much heavy equipment left operational), or were foreign wars, not civil wars. You can make the enemy leave by making the war too costly, but it will always be far costlier for the resistance. A certain middle eastern conflict that shall not be named comes to mind.
Closest example for civil wars would be Myanmar I guess but that was has been going on for almost 5 years and the rebels are still nowhere near winning any of the major cities yet, and the myanmar military is significantly weaker than the US military. I do expect the rebels to eventually win (but then succumb to a new civil war between themselves probably) but that is still many years away and depends more on foreign factors than internal ones. And again, we're talking about an army that has like, 100 operational fighter planes. The US has thousands, far more advanced ones.
Anyway. Point is. Water guns (AR-15s) aren't gonna be what's going to defeat the US military. Only the US military splitting and shooting on itself would be enough, and if the current news about the double taps on venezuelan boats are to be believed, I'm not expecting them to resist illegal orders that much. Besides that, you could have underground campaigns sure but that would take years if not decades to have an effect. You mentionned the IRA (I'm sure in the war of independance context), but if we go to the troubles period, it still took DECADES for something to happen. And while the UK was thoroughly f'd up I don't think it can even compare to what the lunatics in charge of the US are ready to do.
EDIT: oh yeah and honestly insults right from the get go, very curiously defensive about the naming convention of communist forces, tankie spotted I won't engage further
The irony of them implying the Viet Cong only fought with rifles and booby traps (they also used mortars, machine guns, RPGs), and implying they had large tactical success (when their success was more strategical/political) while accusing you of never reading a Wikipedia article.
We've spent countless billions or trillions on fun new toys and the logistics to set up a burger king, pizza hut, and air field anywhere on the planet in a couple days.
I am pretty sure us beat the vietnamese military with ease. there is no way America could lose in a conventional war its weakness is guerilla warfare and it has been proved multiple times in history (forgive me if i am wrong)
The US lost a thousand planes in operation rolling thunder alone (one of the bombing campaign of North Vietnam)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder
But wasant rolling thunder no big deal for us as they had massive production and logistical support while vc dealt mpore political and psychological damage (sorry if i am wrong i am not taking pro or anti gun sides here but just asking something from history in fact i am not even american but just cuz its about vietnam i was intrested)
Is it? Because only a fraction of a percent of gun deaths in the US are from any type of rifle or long gun.
lol, I like you
The same government that has access to tanks, missiles, jets, nukes etc, but sure, your ar-15 should keep the balance lol
It's really not that, it's that gerrymandering has propped up the Republicans and they won't let progress happen.
Guns need to go but we shot ourselves in the foot (pun intended) by enshrining gun rights in our constitution.
However you think it should be interpreted our supreme Court interpreted it the way it is currently being used.
The issue now is that even if we could overturn it, which would require Congress and the Senate to pass it, the president to sign it, and 2/3 of the states would have to ratify it which wouldn't happen.
If we passed some way of allowing it to happen without that 2/3 vote, which wed ironically need to get to pass such a bill, then we run the risk of our first amendment (freedom of speech) and our fourth amendment (freedom from unwarranted search and seizure) being repealed as well as soon as we have some crazy right wing nut (that could never happen right?)
Unfortunately much of modern society relies on people just following rules and norms which is clearly out the window.
Well, only half of America believes this. There’s a phrase commonly touted by American conservatives that says, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. They want to arm already drastically underpaid teachers and put more guns into our schools. The other half of the country actually cares about the lives of children and mental healthcare access.
It’s interesting that the vast majority of gun sales are for private use, rather than any militia or territorial defense
Unorganized partisans are ineffective, but local organizations can utilize AT/AA, prevent oppression, and can’t effectively oppress others. Then it’d be possible to manage the sheer number of weapons present already.
Ask Charlie Kirk.
Remember when he said school shootings were a fair trade off for having guns? That worked out well for him.
"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Yet despite Charlie's words, republicans have politicised his death.
I mean, having gun deaths is the whole point of having guns. If there were no gun deaths then the guns aren't even doing their job.
The swiss and finns have a tons of gun per capita too but very few shootings. Not quite US level but still very high.
It comes down to a lot of things, but legislation and culture does a lot. For exemple, their army rifles, they can't use the ammo. And well, they went through army training, it's not random teens. And again, culture. American culture glorifies violence, individualism makes people way more disconnected and prone to mental illnesses and copycatting violent events.
It's too easy to say it's just the guns. But at the same time, if your culture leads to morons shooting each other on an hourly basis (generous here...), then maybe they shouldn't be provided with guns so easily... And there have been exemples of extremely succesfull gun buybacks, like Australia after the Port Arthur massacre. But again, I have 0 faith whatsoever the American gun nuts would EVER do the right thing.
More importantly, it cultivates fear.
For centuries, Americans have been conditioned to be afraid that someone will take their shit. Look at old Western films. It's always a POC or immigrant trying to steal from the WASP. Native Americans, Chinese, Irish, Germans, Mexicans etc.
Conservatism and xenophobia go hand-in-hand, because conservative politics are all fear-based.
Ehhh I think it's a good point but also not sufficient at all. War movies and western movies are/were popular just the same in Europe after all, even though you just don't see these violent outbursts
Im no sociologist/anthropologist whatsoever so everything from here is mostly just speculation. But to me culture is a lot more informal than just the "visible stuff" you would get from movies. It's the way people talk to each other, the way they interact. You mention these movies for exemple but the entire US has them, yet you see this propensity for violence isn't equally distributed. And also what I mentionned with europe.
On the other hand, it sure does feed one another. The "local culture" influencing movies, which in turn influence people's preconceptions. But again, it's not like Swiss or Finns don't have access to these movies either. But despite the movies, in their cultures, guns are treated differently. I can't speak for them since I'm from Belgium but what I know is that guns are more rarely something people will boast about to absolutely everyone else. It's not like they don't have gun enjoyers, but rarely people who make their whole personnalities about it. So that's what I mean by the fact the local cultures influence things, but it's a lot less tangible than what you can see from the outside. Even if you somehow removed war movies, westerns, etc... from circulation, the problem wouldn't dissipate. It's far deeper rooted than that.
maybe it's not good to give a weapon of mass destruction to anyone, maybe swords are a fair trade off, these serve the same function and in close combat (the one that happens when you are getting robbed inside your house) it is as if not more effective than most guns.
I believe the US population is desensitized to what guns are, a single man with a single gun is enough to force their will into everyone in sight, knife vs knife is known by everyone to be a lose-lose, and so you don't see much deaths from these interactions, gun vs gun is different, there's no draw, you have to kill them faster than they kill you, leading to emotional murders rather than self-defense.
God gave us the right to have guns? I missed that in my bible readings.
Hmm. Yes. I am willing to sacrifice your children for my guns. Thank you for your sacrifice.
Who? Sounds like a complete nobody and loser to me.
Hey, that man did a lot of hard work raising awareness for lead poisoning.
What do you mean, they're doing a lot to prevent it? Haven't you seen blackboards that can act as bulletproof shields? Then someone also made bulletproof backpacks as well. Metal detectors at doors. And having armed guards in schools. Unfortunately, it seemed like introducing more guns into schools didn't solve the issue; then it dawned on them, how could they be so stupid to think more guns could solve this? The solution is obviously, that the amount of guns wasn't enough, so now there's the initiative to arm teachers. Oddly enough, this hasn't worked out either, which can only mean one thing: that there still aren't enough guns in school.
My team and I have suggested to introduce turrets in school that guns down perpetrators. It uses ChatGPT to identify potential bad guys with guns, we're currently looking for investors. So far we're at about a 92% accuracy in controlled test environments, and we're positive we can get it to about 96-97%.
We've also looked into what we called interior disguised guns; we recently saw the Willy Wonka movie and were inspired by the scene where "everything was chocolate", and thought, what if everything was guns? Door handle? Nope, it's a gun. Stapler? Maybe, it could also be, a gun. Open a book? Bang, you're dead bad guy. Flushing the toilet? Got you, it was a shotgun.
NRA and gun lobbyist put in a lot work to bribe the the right people and convince people any form of gun control is bad.
Because republicans care more about guns than children.
The brutal indifference of late stage capitalism. Children, the future of humanity are thus dehumanized by those seeking profit.
The mass shooter phenomenon comes from a right wing, online based, domestic terrorist movement. The manifestos share are as long as they are because they copy/paste from previous manifestos. They also contain the process of how the mass shooter picked their target and prepared for the attack in advance. Yes, they are sharing "best practices".
Why isn't anything being done? Did I mention it was a RIGHT WING domestic terrorist movment?
No it does not lmao.
Majority of school shootings are done due to poverty, and carried out by black / POCs.
That's the real question right there.
Short answer: The Republican party and the NRA.
Longer answer:
The NRA has pumped billions of dollars into lobbying groups that have successfully blocked almost all inquiries into gun violence as a whole in a government capacity, and then subsequently argued that because there is "no evidence to support that it's a problem", they do nothing, and go about their day.
If they didn't do that, the Democrats would very likely have passed some kind of comprehensive gun laws like licensed carry only, registering ammunition and all firearms like a car or vehicle, and requiring gun safety courses to earn the license. The Republicans oppose this because they sometimes placate to their base, who are nearly unanimously pro gun, and called it "an attack on their freedoms" to which Republicans have been repeating the same tired bs of "they want to take your guns and your jobs!!" for decades.
As an American, I have no logical answer. Charlie Kirk was the most honest about it “unfortunate deaths are a necessity to maintain our second amendment rights.” Fuck Kirk, but he said the quiet part out loud. “My individual right to firearms is more important than a child’s right to live”
Because mental healthcare is taboo, and because nobody in the working class has access to healthcare in the first place, then you add all the guns everywhere and it’s a recipie for violenece
There's a lot of Christians here, and they are really into dead kids. (If the Bible is to be believed)
Capitalism. More guns laws make it harder to sell, less gun laws introduce a whole new industry of school shooter defense tech to make money off of.
Thoughts and prayers are the usual response 🙏
I'll tl;dr this at the end, but I'll explain as best I can.
There are multiple lobbying groups (most notably the NRA, the National Rifle Association) which vehemently opposed any form of legislation to limited access to firearms, and the NRA is a staunch ally of the Republican party. The Republican party is the political party currently in the White House and also currently with a majority in Congress and Senate.
Any time there is a major school shooting in the US, the Democrats (the other major political party in the US) float the Brady Bill, a bill designed to implement better gun control laws. This pisses off the NRA and the Republicans, who then fight it tooth and nail to ensure that nothing changes. Generally, the Republicans, NRA, and other gun advocacy groups cite the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are a lot of arguments on this subject--the pro-gun crowd argue that it means everyone should have access to guns (there are certain restrictions based on age, mental illness, and criminal history--and some people want even those restrictions gone), and those in favor of gun control usually cite that at the time the document was written guns were much less efficient killing machines, that the gulf between the military hardware available to a hypothetical tyranous government renders the kinds of firearms civilians can purchase sort of irrelevant, that "well regulated Militia" does itself imply regulation is necessary, or that a well regulates Militia is reflective of the national guard of each state rather than a private citizen's gun ownership.
Tl;dr there are multiple powerful advocacy groups which value guns over the lives of children, and those powerful groups support, and are supported by, the political party currently running the country.
The people who sell the guns make the rules (through legal bribes.)
The same political party that put Trump in the White House did this.
To quote the late Charlie Kirk (may he rest in piss): "I think it's worth it, unfortunately, to have some gun deaths every single year, so that we can protect our other god-given rights".
That's right, unitedstatians genuinely believe sacrificing all those children to the altar of the 2nd amendment is worth it.
You have to applaud Charlie for avoiding racism for almost 3 months now.
Gunz r kewl
I mean theres nothing they CAN do about it
/s
Republicans.
Because gun companies make money off every bullet that kills a child.
Malice
Boils down to a civic gun cult paired with pervasive, extreme alienation. Add to that a culture of violence and fame and you got yourself repeated, unaddressed mass violence against the most vulnerable in society.
The US has a LOT of gun per capita, but many other countries do and they don't have this problem. It's a factor but not the whole story.
Distrust of government regulation. Along with 2a, there's a fear that criminals will have guns while citizens will be defenseless. Also states have the ability to make their own rules, so one heavily regulated state may be adjacent to one with looser rules. Also many laws have come about purely to regulate a certain group. Like with Reagan making laws bc of the Black Panthers. Not saying that's what I believe, but that's some concerns others have.
An example of the states making their own laws being an issue is that IL fairly has strict gun laws (for the US). Less than 50% of the guns used in crime in IL come from ILLINOIS. Most come from Indiana which has weak gun laws.
Yeah until the laws are federal, legislating it is kind of hard to get public support. I like how states have a lot of independence, but there's many drawbacks like this.
The answer to that is those who vote Republican and those who don't vote. That's why we have 300 or so school shootings a year; Vehemently oppose any level of gun control and cut funding to Healthcare, including mental health services, and this is what you get. We are so great again. The sacrifice of child lives is apparently worth owning the libs, giving tax cuts to billionaires, and getting rid of those pesky brown people.
Because second amendment ‘murica! We don’t care about kids-as proven by basically everything in the US
They need more guns to defend themselved from gun carrying crazies
Because morons see the second amendment and don’t wanna loose their guns. The 2nd amendment was added to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship and controlling the masses. It was to be an “equalizer” against an over bearing government. But when that was written they didn’t have jets, worships with nukes and drones. Yet there are loads of “gravy seals” who think they could oppose the government and its army. Yet these same morons mostly voted for the current administration which is doing just that, and they don’t give a fuck.
But that’s the thing about the American constitution, it’s a living document. Meaning you can change details with…. AMENDMENTS. So we could change the gun laws. But people are fucking stupid here.
What do you mean???? They're sending thoughts and prayers, duh.
They did try
/S
There’s an amendment that says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court is in charge of determining if state laws are compliant with the constitution and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The court is made of 9 judges, with one being named as Chief Justice. They are appointed by presidents, approved by the senate, and serve for life. This court is made of 6 judges who were appointed by a Republican and 3 that were appointed by a Democrat. Unfortunately, the justices have stoped calling balls and strikes and now adhere much more closely to political ideology.
This version of the court is dominated by strict constitutionalists. That is to say that they believe that the founders chose their words carefully and we should match their letter and intent when determining if laws are constitutional or not. Let’s go back to that amendment now: at the time it was written, the U.S. did not have a standing army. Our collective defense was successfully shouldered by citizen militias who rose up to fight the most powerful nation in the world. The hope was by protecting the rights of farmers to keep muskets, we’d be able to quickly raise an army if attacked. We’ve come a long way from that and those six justices refuse to acknowledge that technological progress and systemic changes should be considered. Long story short, they overturn gun control laws constantly.
The other side of this issue is that liberals don’t know what the fuck we’re talking about when it comes to guns because we don’t own any. Case in point: you may have heard that assault weapons should be singled out and banned because school shooters keep using AR-15 assault weapons. What you might not hear too much is that there’s no major difference in the lethality of an AR-15 rifle and a similar rifle that lacks a few cosmetic features. Removing those features removes that weapon from the “assault weapons” category. If you want to do the most good, you’d want all hand guns to evaporate like a fart in the wind, but that’s not a conversation most Americans are prepared to have.
They've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
There's currently a multi billion dollar industry surrounding school shootings so nothings getting done because rich people are (probably) buying politicians so they can sell bandaids for the bullet holes.
Because people like Charlie Kirk spent their awful lives preventing anything being done.
A mix of redneck & manosphere culture, collective indifference, and the NRA lobbying politicians
Here in canada the last school shooting i can remember is Dawson College.
That was in 2006.
Looking at the list, the last one with over 5 victims, which if i can remember right is the US benchmark for what is a school shooting, is Polytechnique... in 1989.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_Canada
The biggest school shooting in Poland was in 1925 and had 5 casualties, including 2 shooters. Wikipedia lists exactly 4 shootings in the last century.
“Only”
There are about 260 week days in a year, so it is more than 1 per school day. And I haven't accounted for school holiday periods either.
They were calculating for the 39 that resulted in injuries or death.
The counting is also somewhat dubious too. It has a very broad definition for "school shooting". There are not 300 active shooters inside a school while they are in session. Some of them, they count people adjacent to schools. Others will count stray bullets that are near the property. They will count brandishing, accidental discharge, or even bringing one on campus. It's not a perfect science. It is why it is always important to understand the data and how it is obtained. That's not to say that there isn't an issue. There is.
Outside of schools we have more mass shootings every year than days.
Over 300 for 36 weeks is actually multiple per day
36 school weeks x 5 days a week is 180 days... 300/year would be 1.6 per day so at least one per school day.
36 school weeks or ~180 days. More than 1/day (1.7, rounded). That's if there's 300.
That obviously doesn't include other incidents like knives. When I was in school we had bomb threats once every 4 or so years because a high school senior thought it'd be an easy way to get out of school. The one when I was in 6th or 7th grade was so bad they had metal detectors and cops searching our bags on our way in though, so there's been a longer hiatus. We were a rural redneck school, and it doesn't seem like the fake bomb threats are actually the norm. The dumb way kids got us out of classes when I was in high school was slashing the bus tires.
Edit: did some digging, looks like there's no longer that longer hiatus. Last one was a vague threat two years ago.
"only"
More school shootings per year in the US than there are school days per year
Yes, and no.
The way the statistic is counted is prone to bloat and counts any discharge of a fire arm on school grounds as a school shooting
That includes instances of people unaliving themselves in the parking lot or a cop NDing his pistol
The majority of that statistic are incidences like the above
However. There still way too fucking msny and the fact there are so many guns on school grounds for there to be this many accidental shootings is ludicrous
It could be 0, only if they used common sense and banned ... reporting of school shootings!
https://www.massshootingtracker.site/
It’s fucking daily now.
Check out gunviolencearchive.org
they don’t happen daily. so far in 2025 there have been 16 reported injuries or deaths from gunfire on school grounds and 222 reported total incidents of gunfire. Unacceptable numbers for sure, but it would be basically very different if it was a daily occurance.
Umm, your math is a little fuzzy here. There is no school on the weekends, holidays, summer break, etc. That makes the total number of school days average about 180 give or take a couple days, depending on the state or district. Just using your own numbers here: there were only 16 fatalities or injuries out of a total of 222 reported gunfire incidents on school grounds. That still means in 2025 there was a school shooting incident, on average 1.23 times per school day, and the year isn't even over. Just because someone didn't actually get shot most of the times doesn't mean it isn't a serious danger and quite traumatic for students and teachers who have to worry whether it will be their school that has to go into lockdown that day.
That's almost as many people as been killed by lightning this year
https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-fatalities
This post has already been proven wrong. We had a shooting.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/burton-high-school-sf-shooting-student-21219342.php
They shouldn’t have posted early, they wouldn’t have gotten any ideas
It’s only noon
The OOP was posted 2/12
In Italy there hasn't been a school shooting since the invention of fire arms, wonder why
The closest thing to a school shooting in the history of Spain was carried out with a fucking crossbow, the usians are just delulu
The UK had one in the 1990s, which is why nobody here is allowed handguns any more.
The prayers worked!
I knew they’d kick in soon
I don't think we've had a school shooting in the UK since Dunblane in the mid 90s. I'm trying to think why that might be.
We had a very bad one in Czechia a couple years ago. The shooter was “inspired” by attacks in Russia and the U.S.
We did it, guys!!! One whole day! USA! USA!
There was a shooting later that day.
Awwww, shucks.
If it wasnt for school shootings, the rest of the world would think we didnt have schools.
The day is not over
yet
This has to be satire right? RIGHT?
Pamphlets isn't even a news source. They're a communist twitter troll. Most of their posts are bait
[removed]
This post/comment has been automatically removed due to low comment Karma (<10)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Today so far
It’s finally safe to have kids just like Jordan Petersen and Erika Kirk and WAPO opinion pages said it is!!! /s
My first assumption is that they stopped reporting them...like the jobs report and inflation.
Wow that’s actually news worthy! 🙃🙂
Don’t jinx it!
Was it Sunday?
In Poland we had one school shooting with two people injured a few years back and it's still big news. In the US nobody talks about a school shooting if 50 people don't die.
Isn't Pamphlets like the Onion?
Nah, the onion is a satire publication and Pamphlets is usually just engagement baiting on twitter, I think it's one guy. Don't get me wrong though, I like the account.
Ah okay. Thanks for the explanation!
Same goes for my country... 364 days a year on average.
Why would they juxtapose the photos like that lmao
Those cops are making sure one gets done today. Gotta justify their paycheck somehow
The verb "reported" is doing heavy lifting here. As well as the "today".
What would be nice to read would be "0 shool shootings for over a decade", or even "0 school shootings this year".
Wow. That is such a high bar to clear. Its almost like no other country has that issue.
How is this BREAKING
Day's not over yet.
r/agedlikemilk
Isn’t this a satire account or am I mistaken?
USA USA USA
Bullets too expensive
Pax Americana achieved
Trigger warning, you say?
Wow...congrats America..
BREAKING
Best overall 3# country in the world.
Why is the police sniper aiming at that kids head?
I love it when "news" outlets try to flex things that should just be fucking standard. I also expect these idiots to post shit like "hey no.babies we're thrown into a wood chipper today!" Like yeah it's fucking hope not.