Has anyone noticed how mass shootings seem to have increased over the past few months? Could it be related to the increased anger under Trump?
Can you cite statistics showing an increase? The data I’ve seen indicates that mass shootings in the US have decreased this year, and that so far this year there have been less than half the number of mass shootings so far this year compared to 2024 or 2023.
A poster on Bluesky wrote: "If you think a golden ballroom is more important than childhood cancer research...I have nothing left to say to you."
Sometimes perspective is everything.
Sure, but you and this person are decent human beings. I however can think of all kinds of nasty things to say to someone funding a golden ballroom but not childhood cancer research.
Has anyone noticed how mass shootings seem to have increased over the past few months? Could it be related to the increased anger under Trump?
Can you cite statistics showing an increase? The data I’ve seen indicates that mass shootings in the US have decreased this year, and that so far this year there have been less than half the number of mass shootings so far this year compared to 2024 or 2023.
It is hard to put any quantitative values on this since we are talking about 7 months. As of the end of July there were 253 mass shootings. On July 28 alone, there were the following:
Atlanta, GA: 1 dead, 10 injured in a nightlife district; Detroit, MI: 2 dead, 2 injured at a gas station; Reno, NV: 3 dead, 3 injured outside a resort; Midtown Manhattan, NYC: 4 dead, 1 injured in an office building shooting
Just this past week, there was the shooting in Anaconda MT (4 dead), one in Harvey IL (2 Dead 7 injured), another in Los Angeles (2 dead 6 injured, and the one in Ft Steward (5 injured).
I know, only in America. But with the recent events, I am wondering.
According to numbers in Wikipedia we're on track for 458 mass shootings for 2025 (I took the number for 7 months and projected for 12). It says there were 586 mass shootings last year. So if we stay on the current trajectory, we're actually improving.
According to numbers in Wikipedia we're on track for 458 mass shootings for 2025 (I took the number for 7 months and projected for 12). It says there were 586 mass shootings last year. So if we stay on the current trajectory, we're actually improving.
Yes, and those same numbers showed 604 mass shootings in 2023, so 2024 was an improvement on 2023.
Point is, there has been a uptick of shootings, IT SEEMS, in the past two weeks. I would project last seven months into the 12 months. Just seems there is a lot of anger out there. What I am asking is can it be related to the Trump administration. I don't want to get hung up on the trees and not see the forest.
Point is, there has been a uptick of shootings, IT SEEMS, in the past two weeks. I would project last seven months into the 12 months. Just seems there is a lot of anger out there. What I am asking is can it be related to the Trump administration. I don't want to get hung up on the trees and not see the forest.
The thing is Gramps, you’re asking us to speculate on whether a trend you think you see might be related to the Trump administration without first asking whether the trend you think you see is in fact really happening. If you’re wrong about the trend, then what’s the point in discussing whether that trend-that-isn’t-a-trend is related to the Trump administration?
It’s not about forests and trees. It’s about not wasting time on uninformed discussion.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would think this was worth re-circulating. We are long past the point where Trump is gonna lose support because of decades-old allegations of business incompetence. I doubt that 1 outta 10 people watching that video even know what "the Plaza" refers to.
It's no news-flash that Trump generally garnered a lotta hostility in NYC and chattering class circles in the 1980s. His currrent positive image in Middle America largely flows outta his reality-show in the 2000s/2010s, and the people who are now sucked into that cult don't care about what anyone was saying about him in 1990.
Point is, there has been a uptick of shootings, IT SEEMS, in the past two weeks.
Based on what? It doesn't seem to me like this is happening. Your individual subljective impression isn't anything to go by.
You're getting worse about this, too. You post a lot, and a lot of your posts aren't thought through.
In any study someone has to raise a hypothesis, or speculation, to examine. What prompted me to wonder about this was the shootings on July 28, which I have listed above. Four mass shootings in one day. I ask what could be the basis for such one day jump in the shootings? In the Trumpsphere, this is right in the middle of the Jeffery Epstein charade. I am just asking could there be a connection.
Now, looking at the longer-range statistics, I can see how Nick and you are saying, nope, mass shootings are going down. You projected there would likely be 458 mass shootings this year. That's about 1.25 mass shootings a day. Four mass shootings on 28 July is over 3 times the daily average up till then this year. I am wondering if the trend is changing and if it can be connected to the increasing anger people have been expressing about Trump. His approval ratings continue to go down. I am betting they will plummet even more when the tariffs will show themselves in retail sales, which will be around the traditional time of the Christmas sales.
A 2024 thesis from the University of Texas at San Antonio found that over 70% of mass shootings in 2021 involved identifiable anger triggers, such as:
- Insults, perceived disrespect, or humiliation
- Feelings of betrayal or injustice
- Revenge against institutions, workplaces, or communities
These shooters often expressed anger through violent retaliation, not impulsive rage.
Trump and his minions have contributed a lot to the sense of humiliation, feelings of betrayal, and distrust of institutions over the past seven months. I am sensing a buildup of pressure. I cannot help but wonder.
Now, you and Nick may be right. Nothing to worry here. Violence is going down. But I would not bet on it, if I were a gambler.
It's no news-flash that Trump generally garnered a lotta hostility in NYC and chattering class circles in the 1980s. His current positive image in Middle America largely flows outta his reality-show in the 2000s/2010s, and the people who are now sucked into that cult don't care about what anyone was saying about him in 1990.
Has it been shown that the TV shows enhanced trump's image? (I'm not suggesting it hasn't; I just haven't seen the evidence). My lasting impression of trump began when we visited the then-new Trump Tower in the early 80s. It struck me as a colossal monument to the flaunting of tasteless, wealthy vulgarity with no care or concept of design for use by humans. That was the beginning of the profound contempt in which I hold that intellectually and morally stunted man. So yes, this process started a long time ago for some of us, and his revolting TV exploits only add to it.
Now, looking at the longer-range statistics, I can see how Nick and you are saying, nope, mass shootings are going down. You projected there would likely be 458 mass shootings this year. That's about 1.25 mass shootings a day. Four mass shootings on 28 July is over 3 times the daily average up till then this year. I am wondering if the trend is changing . . . .
The thing is, one or two days tells us nothing about whether a trend is changing. We can only tell if a trend is changing by looking at a sufficiently long period of time.
And we can only tell if mass shootings are somehow linked to anger about Trump by examine the reasons, so far as we know them, for each mass shooting. Anything else is just guesswork.
Now, you and Nick may be right. Nothing to worry here.
You misunderstand if you think what I was saying is that there’s nothing to worry about here. That’s not what I’m saying at all. You said, “in any study someone has to raise a hypothesis, or speculation, to examine.” What I am saying is that your failure to provide a factual or evidentiary basis for your hypothesis beyond “it seems to me” makes discussion of the hypothesis problematic at best. And as noted, there is data that undercuts your hypothesis.
Again, what I’m saying is that any discussion of whether anger at Trump is the, or at least a, reason for an upward trend in mass shootings is a waste of time if there’s no upward trend to start with. And so far, we’ve got insufficient data to demonstrate an upward trend.
@Nick Tamen I think acknowledged you point. It is too early to tell if there is an upward trend. Two days of information does not show much, though the increase was during the height of the Epstein charade. We will have to see if where it is going. We should know around the time of the Christmas shopping season.
It's no news-flash that Trump generally garnered a lotta hostility in NYC and chattering class circles in the 1980s. His current positive image in Middle America largely flows outta his reality-show in the 2000s/2010s, and the people who are now sucked into that cult don't care about what anyone was saying about him in 1990.
Has it been shown that the TV shows enhanced trump's image? (I'm not suggesting it hasn't; I just haven't seen the evidence). My lasting impression of trump began when we visited the then-new Trump Tower in the early 80s. It struck me as a colossal monument to the flaunting of tasteless, wealthy vulgarity with no care or concept of design for use by humans. That was the beginning of the profound contempt in which I hold that intellectually and morally stunted man. So yes, this process started a long time ago for some of us, and his revolting TV exploits only add to it.
The "Apprentice" theory of Trump's rise to popularity is, admittedly, something I came up with on my own, and was later informally validated by a few commentators more directly familiar with the relevant cultural properties than I was. The one I recall best was arguing that his popularity in small-town Anerica was precisely BECAUSE of his urbane image, since, unlike in the heyday of agrarianism, people in those locales recognize that their environments are now economically devastated, meth-plagued hellholes, and Trump's persona and perceived lifestyle presented an alternative vision of how it could all be.
But for me, I basically sum up his rise with...
Trump was a succesful businessman in New York City.
Because NYC is one of the two main entertainment centers in the USA, his persona burst its way into the national pop-culture in a way that it would not have had he had the same career in, say, Chicago.
As a result of his rise in the aforementioned national pop culture, Trump became everyone's idea of a highly successful businessman, culminating in his weekly appearance in American living rooms via The Apprentice, further cementing his image as a tough, competent, no-nonsense managerial genius.
And the rest, as they say, is history. As for your personal revulsion at Trump Tower, yeah, that would probably have been my reaction as well. But a lotta the public DOESN'T recognize nouveau-riche culture as tacky or vulgar, and considers it just a sign of genuine social elevation.
There is, IMO, another important factor in the "Apprentice Theory". The format of the show required a successful business person to front it, but that creates a problem because successful business people are either too busy being successful or are enjoying the good life their success has brought and don't need the TV money. So, it was necessary for the producers of the Apprentice to re-write history to present a mediocre business person as highly successful.
Trump is a consummate egotistic who revels in the publicity that the Apprentice gave him, and he'd already started producing that fictional character with a few cameo appearances and the books written in his name (especially "Art of the Deal"), the TV show cemented that fiction into the psyche of a large proportion of the US population.
Perhaps trump is simply a popular role model. He successfully flouts all laws, he cheats, steals, lies, believes that women are a commodity, works revenge on all who have worked against him, does it all with impunity, and an admiring nation pays him to do it.
(Winces) Please. Not "an admiring nation." Say rather "a nation with SOME people who are fool enough to admire him, God help us all." And some of those are changing their minds, though never enough.
(Winces) Please. Not "an admiring nation." Say rather "a nation with SOME people who are fool enough to admire him, God help us all." And some of those are changing their minds, though never enough.
You are right, of course. Would 'an admiring constituency' be closer?
Trump was a succesful businessman in New York City
.
While he can claim success with the Trump Towers and Plaza Hotel, he was a slum lord when it came to rentals. His various casino ventures ended up bankrupt. His airline venture and his spirits and meats went belly up. His university never got accredited. And he was known to exaggerate his wealth, declaring himself as a self-made man. He started out with a silver spoon in his mouth. Many of his rental properties came through his father. He still has many pending lawsuits involving nonpayment of contracts, supplies and employment. It remains to be seen how his many ventures he is now in will be successful.
My sainted mother always called him a grifter and a crook, He was never really accepted among the wealthy of NYC.
(Winces) Please. Not "an admiring nation." Say rather "a nation with SOME people who are fool enough to admire him, God help us all." And some of those are changing their minds, though never enough.
You are right, of course. Would 'an admiring constituency' be closer?
The implication of that is nation-wide ("a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative"). What you're looking for is something like "group" or "plurality"--even "majority" would be in error.
What I am trying to say is that it's a hell of a lot of people who see him as their role model and who voted for him; enough to wreak long term harm to their country.
And now Trump wants to have summit in Alaska with Putin to discuss Ukraine. Without Ukraine present. The man wants publicity for diplomacy but doesn't understand the very hard work that goes into it behind the scenes. Trumps keeps shaking the Russian Eight-ball asking for a different answer and he isn't getting one.
Trump was a succesful businessman in New York City
.
While he can claim success with the Trump Towers and Plaza Hotel, he was a slum lord when it came to rentals. His various casino ventures ended up bankrupt. His airline venture and his spirits and meats went belly up. His university never got accredited. And he was known to exaggerate his wealth, declaring himself as a self-made man. He started out with a silver spoon in his mouth. Many of his rental properties came through his father. He still has many pending lawsuits involving nonpayment of contracts, supplies and employment. It remains to be seen how his many ventures he is now in will be successful.
My sainted mother always called him a grifter and a crook, He was never really accepted among the wealthy of NYC.
All true. But he still always managed to come out personally on top, and thus continue living the high life, while garnering the commensurate attention from the people in New York who get paid to entertain and enlighten the whole country.
I remember the DC-based Doonesbury lampooning Trump University back when that was still an ongoing farce, but other than that, at least in my corner of the North American media market(*), we didn't hear a lot about the micro-details in The Case Against Donald Trump. Sure, it was reported when one of his casinos went under, but for a lotta people, I suspect the mere fact that his name was linked to casinos in the first place is what forms their impression of him.
(*) Big 3 Networks plus PBS via Spokane affiliates; Time, Newsweek, syndicated big-name American newspaper articles and columnists, the major political magazines, almost all the Hollywood movies etc.
As a self-counterpoint, I will say that I wasn't one to seek out info about "the Donald" beyond what was reported in the literal headlines of newspaper articles, and one or two quotes from the Larry King Show. But I never really got the impression that there was much being reported that would pierce through the soupy fog of "Ups and downs of a semi-interesting rich guy".
Oh, and I just remembered that when Trump had his big fight with Merv Griffin over a casino, it was reported on ET(or some such) as a lighthearted story about a pair of roguish businessmen trying to outsmart each other, with, IIRC, Trump portrayed as the more clever of the two.
What I am trying to say is that it's a hell of a lot of people who see him as their role model and who voted for him; enough to wreak long term harm to their country.
Yes, and you're absolutely right. What I'm trying to prevent is you (or anybody, I'm not picky) saying that it's the whole lot of us--or even a majority of us. Because I simply can't bear it. It's bad enough having to live with the man, and suffering from what he does, without being personally blamed for him too.
We have a good number of relatives by marriage in Nebraska - kind, decent, hard working third generation Lutheran immigrant farming stock, and every one a Republican. The problem isn't Republican principles; it's unprincipled Republicans (and some Democrats too, no doubt). I don't think I've suggested anywhere that all Americans share trump's depravity. That could get a reaction from my wife, our children, their spouses, and grandchildren, as well as respected shipmates.
Comments
Sure, but you and this person are decent human beings. I however can think of all kinds of nasty things to say to someone funding a golden ballroom but not childhood cancer research.
One I got from the Ship is:
If he was any more dense he would have an event horizon.
It is hard to put any quantitative values on this since we are talking about 7 months. As of the end of July there were 253 mass shootings. On July 28 alone, there were the following:
Atlanta, GA: 1 dead, 10 injured in a nightlife district; Detroit, MI: 2 dead, 2 injured at a gas station; Reno, NV: 3 dead, 3 injured outside a resort; Midtown Manhattan, NYC: 4 dead, 1 injured in an office building shooting
Just this past week, there was the shooting in Anaconda MT (4 dead), one in Harvey IL (2 Dead 7 injured), another in Los Angeles (2 dead 6 injured, and the one in Ft Steward (5 injured).
I know, only in America. But with the recent events, I am wondering.
It’s not about forests and trees. It’s about not wasting time on uninformed discussion.
You’d like this British description of a current Labour back bench MP (which I think was briefed from a member of his own party)
‘So dense light bends round him’
Based on what? It doesn't seem to me like this is happening. Your individual subjective impression isn't anything to go by.
You're getting worse about this, too. You post a lot, and a lot of your posts aren't thought through.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone would think this was worth re-circulating. We are long past the point where Trump is gonna lose support because of decades-old allegations of business incompetence. I doubt that 1 outta 10 people watching that video even know what "the Plaza" refers to.
In any study someone has to raise a hypothesis, or speculation, to examine. What prompted me to wonder about this was the shootings on July 28, which I have listed above. Four mass shootings in one day. I ask what could be the basis for such one day jump in the shootings? In the Trumpsphere, this is right in the middle of the Jeffery Epstein charade. I am just asking could there be a connection.
Now, looking at the longer-range statistics, I can see how Nick and you are saying, nope, mass shootings are going down. You projected there would likely be 458 mass shootings this year. That's about 1.25 mass shootings a day. Four mass shootings on 28 July is over 3 times the daily average up till then this year. I am wondering if the trend is changing and if it can be connected to the increasing anger people have been expressing about Trump. His approval ratings continue to go down. I am betting they will plummet even more when the tariffs will show themselves in retail sales, which will be around the traditional time of the Christmas sales.
A 2024 thesis from the University of Texas at San Antonio found that over 70% of mass shootings in 2021 involved identifiable anger triggers, such as:
- Insults, perceived disrespect, or humiliation
- Feelings of betrayal or injustice
- Revenge against institutions, workplaces, or communities
These shooters often expressed anger through violent retaliation, not impulsive rage.
Trump and his minions have contributed a lot to the sense of humiliation, feelings of betrayal, and distrust of institutions over the past seven months. I am sensing a buildup of pressure. I cannot help but wonder.
Now, you and Nick may be right. Nothing to worry here. Violence is going down. But I would not bet on it, if I were a gambler.
Has it been shown that the TV shows enhanced trump's image? (I'm not suggesting it hasn't; I just haven't seen the evidence). My lasting impression of trump began when we visited the then-new Trump Tower in the early 80s. It struck me as a colossal monument to the flaunting of tasteless, wealthy vulgarity with no care or concept of design for use by humans. That was the beginning of the profound contempt in which I hold that intellectually and morally stunted man. So yes, this process started a long time ago for some of us, and his revolting TV exploits only add to it.
And we can only tell if mass shootings are somehow linked to anger about Trump by examine the reasons, so far as we know them, for each mass shooting. Anything else is just guesswork.
You misunderstand if you think what I was saying is that there’s nothing to worry about here. That’s not what I’m saying at all. You said, “in any study someone has to raise a hypothesis, or speculation, to examine.” What I am saying is that your failure to provide a factual or evidentiary basis for your hypothesis beyond “it seems to me” makes discussion of the hypothesis problematic at best. And as noted, there is data that undercuts your hypothesis.
Again, what I’m saying is that any discussion of whether anger at Trump is the, or at least a, reason for an upward trend in mass shootings is a waste of time if there’s no upward trend to start with. And so far, we’ve got insufficient data to demonstrate an upward trend.
The "Apprentice" theory of Trump's rise to popularity is, admittedly, something I came up with on my own, and was later informally validated by a few commentators more directly familiar with the relevant cultural properties than I was. The one I recall best was arguing that his popularity in small-town Anerica was precisely BECAUSE of his urbane image, since, unlike in the heyday of agrarianism, people in those locales recognize that their environments are now economically devastated, meth-plagued hellholes, and Trump's persona and perceived lifestyle presented an alternative vision of how it could all be.
But for me, I basically sum up his rise with...
Trump was a succesful businessman in New York City.
Because NYC is one of the two main entertainment centers in the USA, his persona burst its way into the national pop-culture in a way that it would not have had he had the same career in, say, Chicago.
As a result of his rise in the aforementioned national pop culture, Trump became everyone's idea of a highly successful businessman, culminating in his weekly appearance in American living rooms via The Apprentice, further cementing his image as a tough, competent, no-nonsense managerial genius.
And the rest, as they say, is history. As for your personal revulsion at Trump Tower, yeah, that would probably have been my reaction as well. But a lotta the public DOESN'T recognize nouveau-riche culture as tacky or vulgar, and considers it just a sign of genuine social elevation.
Trump is a consummate egotistic who revels in the publicity that the Apprentice gave him, and he'd already started producing that fictional character with a few cameo appearances and the books written in his name (especially "Art of the Deal"), the TV show cemented that fiction into the psyche of a large proportion of the US population.
Do you mean during his NYC career, or during his political ascension?
You are right, of course. Would 'an admiring constituency' be closer?
While he can claim success with the Trump Towers and Plaza Hotel, he was a slum lord when it came to rentals. His various casino ventures ended up bankrupt. His airline venture and his spirits and meats went belly up. His university never got accredited. And he was known to exaggerate his wealth, declaring himself as a self-made man. He started out with a silver spoon in his mouth. Many of his rental properties came through his father. He still has many pending lawsuits involving nonpayment of contracts, supplies and employment. It remains to be seen how his many ventures he is now in will be successful.
My sainted mother always called him a grifter and a crook, He was never really accepted among the wealthy of NYC.
The implication of that is nation-wide ("a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative"). What you're looking for is something like "group" or "plurality"--even "majority" would be in error.
All true. But he still always managed to come out personally on top, and thus continue living the high life, while garnering the commensurate attention from the people in New York who get paid to entertain and enlighten the whole country.
I remember the DC-based Doonesbury lampooning Trump University back when that was still an ongoing farce, but other than that, at least in my corner of the North American media market(*), we didn't hear a lot about the micro-details in The Case Against Donald Trump. Sure, it was reported when one of his casinos went under, but for a lotta people, I suspect the mere fact that his name was linked to casinos in the first place is what forms their impression of him.
(*) Big 3 Networks plus PBS via Spokane affiliates; Time, Newsweek, syndicated big-name American newspaper articles and columnists, the major political magazines, almost all the Hollywood movies etc.
As a self-counterpoint, I will say that I wasn't one to seek out info about "the Donald" beyond what was reported in the literal headlines of newspaper articles, and one or two quotes from the Larry King Show. But I never really got the impression that there was much being reported that would pierce through the soupy fog of "Ups and downs of a semi-interesting rich guy".
Yes, and you're absolutely right. What I'm trying to prevent is you (or anybody, I'm not picky) saying that it's the whole lot of us--or even a majority of us. Because I simply can't bear it. It's bad enough having to live with the man, and suffering from what he does, without being personally blamed for him too.