There is a nonzero chance that I will die at the hands of a spree killer, so I don’t like to say no concern at all. So, I put 1. But, there are a million things I would worry about more, if I were inclined to worry.
I would also like to point out Charlie Hebdo did not happen in the US.
Good grief, there are so many other things to worry about. I suppose I worry about serial killers more than I worry about falling anvils or stealth attacks by Bonnie Prince Charlie, but I doubt I’ve spent more than two minutes even considering the possibility in my fifty plus years on earth.
Maybe France is not an advanced country.
I guess I should be at a 1, but my actual fear is zero. I probably fear car accidents less than I should too. I do fear/regret/hate that these mass murders keep happening.
Not in active sense. I don’t think about it. Or terrorism. Or random assault or robbery. Or disaster preparedness. Or nuclear war. Or car accidents much (more like a 2 fear, unless something happens when I’m driving). If something happens to make me think it might happen, then I’ll think about and be nervous while I think about it. But then things go back to “normal” and I only think about these things when I hear something in conversation or the news. I have more actual nervousness regarding certain legislation and my job/pension stability - things that I actually think are likely to affect me directly.
I would have to put zero as Charleston was not a spree killing.
America is a very large country. The percentage of people killed by madmen/loons/unhinged people is rather miniscule.
Do you know, I put down zero and then realized that I was shot at by a “spree killer”. I guess I just don’t worry about it.
I was working at school while everyone was setting up for graduation when someone came by and opened up with a shotgun. She had started at a local church and started shooting. Drove around, ended up at our school, then opened fire. This was in the eighties. Terrible shot fortunately. I definitely remember being under the desk and arguing with police dispatch. 'Are you calling from a church?" “NO!” “are you sure?” “YES!” “Are there wounded?” “Well, there is screaming, there are shots being fired, people are crying and I’m not going to go look. JUST COME NOW!”
But no, I don’t really think about it. I think about random violence from strangers far more often than I do getting shot by spree shooters.
“Hostile Intruder” is one page in a flip book hung in our break room with no other instructions or training. It is includes a disclaimer about how only you can decide whether you want to try to disarm the person. Other departments have designated windowless rooms to pile into in case of emergency but our department hasn’t gotten around to it.
Not at all. I take basic precautions against garden variety criminals and otherwise pay them no mind. Spree killers are so rare and unpredictable that I just don’t consider them a threat at all. I will far and away more likely die from a heart attack or a motorcycle crash.
I voted one for the same reason, I was living in the area at the time and the place was going bonkers over those guys.
Now I live in Florida and this is the place I “should” be concerned about. But am really not.
I’ll use local odds for a spree shooting Aurora had 12 dead out of 345,803 in the city, Columbine was that last local one before that with 13 dead out of 41,297. So on average I’ve got a 0.0065% chance of getting killed if there is spree killer in my city and the two occurred 4,840 days apart so assuming I live another 50 years and the rate holds there should be about 4 more in my lifetime. So adding up the odds works out to a 0.026% chance of me dieing due to a spree shooter in other words I have 0 concern about a spree shooter. It falls well below my concern of the Yellowstone Caldera erupting.
I voted 1 just because the chance of being killed by a spree killer is non-zero, and I’m probably more likely than the average American to be killed because I live in a highly visible major city that has some (not many, just some) white supremacists living nearby. I also work for an employer that is more likely than the average business to be the target of this sort of attack.
I didn’t vote 2-10 because I have never worried in the slightest about being killed by a spree killer.
I’m a 1 or a 2. Almost no concern.
Even neglecting that, bomb usage in the UK is high enough that I think it balances out spree killers. It’s basically the same thing, just a different term.
Crazy murderous folks gonna do their crazy murdering.
I filled out the form as a 1, because it is a non-zero possibility. But the odds of dying in a car crash, these days, is pretty negligible. Getting hit by a car is bad, but if you’re in the car, you’re pretty safe. So if that’s a 5, the amount of worry that I have about a spree killer is pretty damn minute.
Serial or spree killers don’t factor at all in any of my worries. Nor does terrorism, and I was across the street from the twin towers on 9/11. There are many much more likely risks out there. I have no brainpower, neither conscious nor subconscious, to waste on negligible risks.
Zero. However voted “6” should be taken out back and shot. Oh wait…
- In contrast my fear of a hurricane knocking the house off its foundation is around a 3 and my fear of being killed by an old person or a texter a 5.
I voted a 1 just because the risk is non-zero (not just in the U.S. but anywhere in the world for that matter) but still incredibly small. I regularly engage in several voluntary activities that are vastly more dangerous than any statistical threat posed by spree killers. I would say I don’t worry about it at all (a zero) but I have thought about what I would do if I had to face one or more of them so that makes it rank above a zero by definition for me but, then again, so do lots of other threats that I simply think about and don’t worry about again unless I have to.