Dec 2, 2019

a lot of people say this but how many of us followed the news in the 90s or early 2000s? I followed pokemon news in the 90s. Anyway depends if you're talking about the U.S only or the world

Mass shootings in the U.S actually have increased a lot in the past 20 years but at the same time homicide by firearms have decreased. Basically America is less violent now than in the past if you go by pure numbers. I think the reason it seems worse now is because a lot if not most firearm homicides in the 70s/80s/90s were your typical ghetto shootings or gangs etc especially in black and latino communities. Since the 2000s those have decreased but you've got an increase in mass shootings. And not to sound like a SJW the reason it feels like the end of times now for a lot of americans is because shootings "in the ghetto" is supposed to be normal, that's just what happens in poor areas haha classic black ppl and mexicans fuelling with the drug trade etc. But mass shootings, now you've got civilized America taking hits. White college students aren't supposed to die. A family in a wealthy predominantly white town isn't supposed to get shot while at the mall. People who aren't from housing projects from "dangerous" towns aren't to get mowed down while enjoying a leisurely concert in Vegas. Not to mention a lot of cases the shooter is a white guy with otherwise no criminal history.

Why would a young well behaved white boy from a good family and a good town massacre high schoolers? Sure, it's unfortunate when kids and teenagers from some s-----y projects in baltimore or chicago get killed, but it was usually a drug matter or something so yea I don't have much sympathy for criminals. But Stoneman Douglas High School? The math doesn't add up. Clearly this is a sign of the times. This must be the apocalypse. The world has never been such a brutal place since the dawn of civilization 10,000 years ago and all the wars and chaos in the world since then, NOTHING compares to whats happening in MURICA the past few years

 

Dec 3, 2019

it’s also the definition of terrorism that excludes civilian deaths from conventional military campaigns. Like “terrorism” became a thing in Europe since the IRA from like the 70s-90s and since then it’s been islamic terrorism on the rise. But you had a much higher chance of getting slaughtered in Europe during the wars and not just the world wars. Pre modern warfare consisted of entire cities getting sacked and massacred from armies or supporters (who’d be considered terrorists now) of other states/ideologies when conquered which sums up most of european history.
And when you’re the one getting killed, you don’t really distinguish between conventional warfare or terrorism you’re still dying. We’ve only recently started separating the two and suddenly have a “new” phenomenon but it’s still a bit artificial. If we hadn’t then all those IRA attacks would just be considered part of the war between Irish separatists and the U.K. All the isis attacks would just be considered part of the war in Syria. 9/11 would just be another attack by foreign forces like the bombing of Dresden. The Paris attacks in reality was the Syrian war (that France was involved in) reaching French soil. Terrorism wouldn’t even “exist” if we hadn’t started applying different definitions to acts of warfare. Killing specifically civilians is a tactic to intimidate the enemy or facilitate chaos in the enemies society, or when your forces are too weak to take on enemy forces head on.

All are classic warfare tactics we’ve since abandoned when we started talking about war crimes and humanitarian stuff, conveniently excluding collateral damage because semantics. Just not everyone abandoned them

if you forget all the terminologies, we’re at war with Islamic forces and the isis campaign and attacks in Europe was a weak a--- counter attack by the enemy

 

Dec 3, 2019

In terms of overall violence, we are living in one of the if not the most peaceful time period in human history. I think the expansion of media in terms of television, the internet & social media has made violent acts much more obvious so it may seem more prevalent but it’s not.

now when you start talking about specific acts of violence like mass shootings, that is a relatively more recent phenomenon. At least in the U.S. pre-1990, mass shootings weren’t as frequent as they are today. You can probably tie that to a ton of things: accessibility of firearms; socioeconomic status; mental health; etc. Even Terrorism as we know it today is a relatively new phenomenon. There’s not much academic literature regarding terrorism pre-1970.

To answer your question: there’s always been violence & there have certainly been more violent time periods in human history but the specific types of violence you’re referring to are somewhat new & are becoming more frequent for a variety of societal factors.