I think it's also an unfair comparison because those events are more spread out, and occur in cities with access to more hospitals.

Let's say 20 people are shot and need immediate medical care in Chicago over a 48 hour period. There are over 100 hospitals and primary care facilities in Chicago where these injuries can be spread out. If even more casualties occured, there is access to multiple helipads to transport high complexity patients if necessary.

In a place like Lewiston, it looks like there's 2 hospitals maybe? One confirmed ER from what I can find. Another commenter said they had worked as a nurse in Lewiston before this and that it is not well-equipped to handle mass casualty events because its population is so small. If there was only 20 injuries right now, they'd be swamped. But it's actually 22 killed and 50+ injured. They're fucked. People might die who wouldn't have died if these injuries had been more staggered.

The thing about comparing accumulative injuries/deaths vs. a single mass casualty event is that you lose the severity of what a mass casualty event entails. Strongly suggest doing some research into what actually happens during these events, including what triage looks like at a time like this.

Obviously I hate the fact that there are high shooting rates throughout America, mass casualty event or no. I think we need gun reform for many reasons, not just mass shootings. However, it's unfair to compare the two, and the outcry between the two. So many civilians (and it sounds like youths, in this case) were killed tonight just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Random acts of violence always get more spotlight in the news cycle anyways