[in front of a protesting crowd, two characters are talking]
[blue, serious] Violence is never the solution
[purple, smug] Agreed, let’s disarm the police
[blue is now shown angrily gesticulating, sweating bullets]
NO,
NOT
LIKE
THIS
Let’s get some stats, shall we?
Since 1982, in the US, about 1130 people have died from mass shootings.
American police in that same amount of time has killed over 38000 people.
The problem has never been AR-15s, or the lack of background checks, or anything of the sort. It’s always been the pigs. But liberal suburbans enjoy the benefits of the pigs protecting their property while they kill poorer people, so telling them this makes them stare blankly, or they double down and continue to whine about weapons of war, to which I say: If you’re so concerned with weapons of war being in the streets, why does every law banning AR-15s add exemptions to the police?
What about shootings that aren’t mass shootings? Why are you not counting those?
Because we have lost more civilians to gun violence than every US soldier in every war ever combined in the last 30 years.
While an interesting statistic, it doesn’t really answer the question.
The answer is 1.5 million citizens. That is how much we have lost in the last three decades. The huge amount is the reason we do not talk about it.
Any normal country that was losing the equivalent of a war in population loss every year would be in crisis. It would be a huge issue.
But it is not, we won’t talk about it. Congress passed laws so we can’t study it. It is taboo because there is something much more important than this huge loss of life.
That’s just bad statistics.
Not at all. This article with a spreadsheet by Mother Jones show that there’s been about 1128 mass shooting deaths in the US since 1982, using active shooter incident data. And this paper by The Lancer estimates about 30800 deaths by the police since 1982 until 2019. Adding the data from Wikipedia for police killings from the last few years (2019-2026) gives us about 38028 people killed by the American police since 1982, so I was a little off. Even so, taking all that into account, police in america is 33 times deadlier than mass shooters.
Wake up to reality, kid. Your pigs are worse than people who go to schools to kill children because they’re omegasuicidal.
police in america is 33 times deadlier than mass shooters.
AI Overview Estimates of mass shooters in U.S. history vary widely based on definitions, with studies identifying roughly 172 to 298 “public mass shooters” between 1966 and 2024.
As of 2023, there were approximately 720,652 law enforcement officers in the United States, according to Statista.
Yea you’re just bad at statistics. Which is not mutually exclusive with ACAB btw.
Like this is the reason math teachers don’t accept just the answer. One can arrive at the correct answer while still being terrible at math.
Why is the number of mass shooters and police themselves relevant here? We’re talking about the deaths the respective groups caused, and you haven’t provided any counter-evidence/stats for that.
First off because I’m not disagreeing with his thesis. I’m agreeing with the commentor, who also neglected to disagree with his thesis, who said his use of statistics were flawed.
As to your first question.
He’s comparing total deaths from shooters and police.
But if you add up the total number of individuals that have committed mass shootings it’s gonna total like what 1000? 2000?
Meanwhile there’s at minimum 700,000 police officers in the USA right now (not including ICE-PIGS).
So his number of 33x more deadly is not accurate, because if the USA had even half as many mass shooters as police the death toll from mass shooters would clearly be larger.
Hence why it’s a bad use of statistics.
…
American’s culture of anti-intellectualism is one of the tools the elites use to control the populace. If we can’t even have an adult conversation about math than how are we going to unite against our oppressors?
Not each individual police officer, police as an institution is more deadly than society’s baseline rate of mass shooters. Surely that was obvious from the context.
Buddy ACAB all the way. But you and everyone upvoting you are shit at math. Hive mind af.
edit: Especially your bit about the AR15. WTF does that have to do with your stats? 90% of the police shootings I see are with handguns.
Those statistics can’t be directly compared to each other because the number of mass shooters is significantly lower than the amount of police interactions with the public.
It’s like saying more people die in crashes with combustion vehicles compared to EVs. Of course that’s true because there’s more combustion vehicles on the road.
You need a ratio to do any comparison here.
This is about both of those as a collective, not per capita. The context is pretty clear here.
When we’re trying to do an Apples to Apples comparison, implying cops are more deadly than mass shooters, context is important.
Put a kid in front of a mass shooter, they’ll shoot them.
Put a kid in front of a cop, they’ll shoot them 0.00001% of the time (citation needed, feel free to do the math on total police encounters vs. shootings of children).
That’s bad, but to state or imply that they’re even close to as bad is ridiculous and makes people interested in police reform look ridiculous.
The context here is throwing out numbers unrelated to each other and coming to conclusions based on feelings.
Making it a per capita ratio is how you add the context.
we’re not calculating how much more dangerous a cop is compared to a mass shooter.
It showcases that Americans are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a mass shooter. and that police must change in a very fundamental way, from abolishing to defunding it and definitely disarm them from lethal weapons, and make it illegal for them to misuse force (criminal prosecution for assault with no police immunity)
How do you feel about doctors killing 50-100x as many Americans per year as cops do?
Do you make the same calls to abolish medicine and hospitals?
we’re not calculating how much more dangerous a cop is compared to a mass shooter.
Then why, in your very next sentence, do you compare how dangerous a cop is to a mass shooter?
I’m not saying you’re wrong at all, I’m saying the figures being used don’t support that assessment. They’re just numbers without any meaningful context to compare them with.
I like the contrapositive of this message of if violence is wrong does that mean you wont stop me if i use violence on the rich?
In my country there was a time where that idea was poppular, after the rise of organized crime it isn’t anymore, police is a necessary evil because it’s meant to protect us from things much worse than it.
You Americans have never known the struggle of not functioning institutions until now, and don’t know what dangers lies behind a country where police won’t come if you call them.
The police don’t come now if you live in the wrong area. American police protect the property of the rich. That’s it.
America is pretty massive. Is this the case across the board? Seems like an oversimplification of a complex system/problem. How much of it might be something as simple as staffing shortages, not enough staff to respond to every need, esp. in a very “needy” place?
I think the police have proven they are only out to protect the property of the rich enough times to say that it is across the board. The police are one of the largest gangs in America and they are inherently corrupt. If a cop in a small town cares about normal people it doesn’t really matter in the big picture of police corruption in america.
And what proofs are you referring to that has proven this?
Prove to me it’s an oversimplification.
You’re the one who originally made the strong assertion that police don’t come now if you live in the wrong area. That American police protect the property of the rich. And “That’s its”
I’m not the one making such confident claims. I never asserted anything as fact. I merely suggested that it might be reductive. You seem so confident that you’re right. So I imagine it should be easy for you to prove this or back it up.
So, lets see it. Let’s see/hear what makes you so confident. To assert such things and cap it off with a confident “that’s it”, as it its fact, end of story.
Read the news. Start there.
You sure are upset when all I asked was for proof of me being reductive. ACAB.
Some countries do have unarmed police (though usually there are special armed units).
It works really well!
france, and UK i think, probably Spain.
France for now, until Macron makes his own militia to take control of France
