https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United...
That's a very low bar.
That's how low of a bar I'll set and they still can't meet it.
You seem to be unfamiliar with it. Perhaps you might brush up on that?
Just a crazy thought. Toodles!
Really? Providing definitions of words that seem not to be in one's vocabulary is hateful?
Let's see:
hateful[0] (adjective) 1 : full of hate : malicious 2 : deserving of or arousing hate
Defining words arouses hate?
Should I warn the fine folks over at Merriam Webster that you might come for them?
Or is it that you think suggesting that context is an important part of understanding language is a hateful endeavour?
Please, do tell. This is fascinating!
I wish you well and hope there are folks who will welcome you and make you feel loved. Is that more hateful stuff too, friend?
Not gonna happen.
It's not hateful at all. I wish you no ill will whatsoever.
I'm just calling out what seems pretty clearly to be your lack of nuance/flexibility of the language. Which is something you might expect from a recent English language learner or a child.
Are you one of those? If not, you're pretty clearly being deliberately obtuse.
I won't hazard a guess as to why you might do such a thing, as that would likely be uncharitable.
I'll sum up, in case you're still confused: Calling you out for your tone deafness and/or deliberate obtuseness isn't hateful at all.
In fact, it's meant to inform you of the above as a service, so that you might provide higher quality discourse here.
As for being "hateful," I have no quarrel with you. I wish no harm on you, nor have you earned my ire. Rather, I have no strong feelings about you one way or the other.
If a mild remonstration is considered to be "hateful" by you, I can hardly imagine your reaction to actual verbal abuse. I expect it wouldn't be pretty.
Gang related incidents are something entirely different.
The definition should not obscure the two (but it would be politically inconvenient to separate them)
Just because we picture one thing when we hear a term doesn't change the agreed upon definition of the term.
If the definition of "mass shooting" were a single person, 600 is still way too many to have in a year.
Other developed countries have fewer than 600 gun-related deaths total per year. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/31/1209683...
The fact that upping the bar to 4 per incident and still gets us 600 is frankly shameful.
> it would be politically inconvenient to separate them
Why? No sane person in the United States "likes" gun violence. I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement "600 incidents of a firearm killing 4 or more people is too many incidents." The question that divides people is how we ought to control it.
We don't. What's happening in America with the gun violence is uniquely horrifying.
Every time. It's sad that it takes a satirical newspaper to point out the obvious truth.