Are Mass Shootings Increasing in Frequency

[bilby]

Do you have ANY evidence to back up this extraordinary claim? I have lived in two countries where civilian possession of firearms is restricted, and their ownership for the purpose of self defence is prohibited. I have NEVER heard of a bona-fide case of someone who died because they did not have a firearm with which to defend themselves. Not one.

How many of your murders are not done immediately?

What, as opposed to via slow acting poison? I don't understand the question.

Yet you claim that there should be well above the number who die in mass shootings. How the FUCK do you arrive at this bizarre conclusion?

I'm looking at the number who kill in self defense, figuring that a good percentage of such cases were a lethal threat.

Figuring, or guessing?

(Unfortunately, the data is going to be contaminated by rapes.) There are roughly 10x as many who are shot but don't die. This gives us a ballpark answer of 2,500/yr. Mass shootings are under 100/year, though. If even 4% of those self defense shootings are about people who were actually trying to kill them the self defense is ahead.

Only if you assume that restricting guns will have no effect on the number of situations where people are threatened enough to want to KILL in self defence.

Evidence from literally every developed country in the world says that this assumption is HUGELY wrong. Not least because in a situation where guns are rare, acts of self defence are rarely fatal to the assailant. If I fight off a guy who is trying to assault me with his fists, neither of us needs to die.

I was the victim of an attempted mugging once. A kid stepped out of a doorway in a rough part of town and said 'Give me your trainers'. I said, 'I am wearing boots, dickhead, and I am going to kick your fucking head in', and he ran away. I didn't see a weapon, but I expect he had a knife. According to your assumptions, had I instead shot him dead, that shooting would have been evidence that my being armed would have been a better outcome.

Your arguments are built on a massive scaffold of false and dubious assumptions, many of which rely on the idea that restricting access to guns won't change the fundamental behaviour of criminals. But it DOES. Criminals are even more emboldened by carrying a gun than 'good guy with a gun' loons are. But most of them will not carry a gun if being caught with one has serious repercussions. When being caught carrying a gun without a licence leads to a long term in federal prison, few criminals will choose to routinely go armed. We know this, because that's what happens everywhere else where guns are restricted.

It's not difficult to obtain an illegal gun in the UK or Australia; It's actually often more expensive to buy one at a legitimate gun shop. But criminals don't habitually go armed, because it is just too risky. Get caught with stolen goods, and you can claim to have bought them from a bloke in the pub; or that they belong to you; or that you planned to return them; or that you were going to hand them in to police. The cops might or might not buy your story, but you at least have a chance of getting away with it. Get caught carrying a gun, and there are no excuses; You are going to be in deep, deep shit.

 

[RavenSky]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262?o=1

Kleck's data leaves a lot to be desired.

Note, however, that his data includes a lot of cases that didn't involve a lethal threat in the first place. Things like showing a gun to run off a thief.

The Kleck-Gertz survey is complete dreck. That is the entire point of the article. The Kleck-Gertz survey is what people like you are basing their bogus claims on, however.

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
...
Furthermore, what you are saying about how their weapons are acquired is only useful if your argument is that civilian possession of firearms should be prohibited. And if they are you're faced with all the people that will die because they can't defend themselves--well above the number who die in mass shootings.
...

 

[RavenSky]

But this is something you can avoid--serious domestic violence doesn't just appear out of nowhere.



Obvious cherry-picking.

Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Most criminals are shot as a result of disputes between criminals.

Few criminals are shot by law-abiding citizens

~2,500/yr is few?

Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

It's not like you get to choose only one.

So not only do you continue your very long tradition of never supporting your own wild claims, you refuse to actually read the HARVARD study

Harvard Injury Control Research Center

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

"cherry-picked" my ass

 

[marc]

In the US, law enforcement have to assume that a glimpse of a gun might well simply indicate an ordinary and perfectly lawful situation. In the civilised world, they do not - and that difference changes the behaviour even of hardened criminals.

For example the Colorado gunman who killed three people. He was spotted before the shooting, and it was called into the police. But, since it is an open-carry state, nothing to see here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What, as opposed to via slow acting poison? I don't understand the question.

Immediately: Walk up and shoot the person.

Not immediate: For example, a rapist. A home invader. A kidnapper.

A firearm is of little use with the former. However, if there is an ongoing interaction first the defender very well might have a chance. The reality is that walk-up-and-kill is mostly a criminal vs criminal thing. When the victim is an innocent the primary objective is usually something else.

Only if you assume that restricting guns will have no effect on the number of situations where people are threatened enough to want to KILL in self defence.

I would expect it to have an effect--to raise it. As it stands now "is my victim armed" always will be going through the thoughts of a potential attacker. Under your rules that's no longer a factor.

Evidence from literally every developed country in the world says that this assumption is HUGELY wrong. Not least because in a situation where guns are rare, acts of self defence are rarely fatal to the assailant. If I fight off a guy who is trying to assault me with his fists, neither of us needs to die.

You have more people seriously injured from burglaries than we do. Our burglars are generally careful to avoid confrontations, yours just beat up the homeowner if it happens.

I was the victim of an attempted mugging once. A kid stepped out of a doorway in a rough part of town and said 'Give me your trainers'. I said, 'I am wearing boots, dickhead, and I am going to kick your fucking head in', and he ran away. I didn't see a weapon, but I expect he had a knife. According to your assumptions, had I instead shot him dead, that shooting would have been evidence that my being armed would have been a better outcome.

Simple mugging, compliance is usually the best course of action.

Your arguments are built on a massive scaffold of false and dubious assumptions, many of which rely on the idea that restricting access to guns won't change the fundamental behaviour of criminals. But it DOES. Criminals are even more emboldened by carrying a gun than 'good guy with a gun' loons are. But most of them will not carry a gun if being caught with one has serious repercussions. When being caught carrying a gun without a licence leads to a long term in federal prison, few criminals will choose to routinely go armed. We know this, because that's what happens everywhere else where guns are restricted.

1) It does change the behavior of muggers--the victim is less likely to be hurt.

2) Felon in possession carries a fair amount of time in jail here--but that doesn't deter them from going armed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the US, law enforcement have to assume that a glimpse of a gun might well simply indicate an ordinary and perfectly lawful situation. In the civilised world, they do not - and that difference changes the behaviour even of hardened criminals.

For example the Colorado gunman who killed three people. He was spotted before the shooting, and it was called into the police. But, since it is an open-carry state, nothing to see here.

And he couldn't have hidden his gun in something?? That's not a meaningful deterrent to a mass shooter.

You see a long, thin bag over my shoulder. Gun?

But you see I'm carrying a DSLR. Obviously it's a tripod, nobody's going to call the cops.

(While I've never seen anyone carrying a gun in a bag meant for camera equipment I have seen gun transport used to carry tripods.)

 

[marc]

And he couldn't have hidden his gun in something?? That's not a meaningful deterrent to a mass shooter.

So just another variation on the same excuse you use to argue against any reasonable course of action.

Why don't you prove your point by doing this. Never lock your door again. Not your car door, nor the door to your home/apartment. After all, a locked door isn't going to do any good, criminals can just break a window, or force the door. So why bother?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And he couldn't have hidden his gun in something?? That's not a meaningful deterrent to a mass shooter.

So just another variation on the same excuse you use to argue against any reasonable course of action.

Why don't you prove your point by doing this. Never lock your door again. Not your car door, nor the door to your home/apartment. After all, a locked door isn't going to do any good, criminals can just break a window, or force the door. So why bother?

The problem is your side keeps wanting to do something that sounds good with no regard for whether it will actually work.

Take that locked door bit--yes, a locked door helps. However, I've seen plenty of houses around with bars in front of the door but nothing on the windows. That's what you're trying to do.

 

[marc]

The problem is your side keeps wanting to do something that sounds good with no regard for whether it will actually work.

Even a half measure will do considerably more than what you want to do, which is nothing. Rather than trying to come up with better ways to handle the problem, you seem satisfied with letting innocent people get shot up, just as long as you get your boom binky.

Take that locked door bit--yes, a locked door helps.

So you admit that doing something actually helps

However, I've seen plenty of houses around with bars in front of the door but nothing on the windows. That's what you're trying to do.

Having bars on the door with nothing on the windows is still a lot better than just leaving the front door wide open, which is what you are advocating. So you can quit your whining about people not having a perfect solution. No go and open your front door nice and wide, show you actually do think half measures are no better than doing nothing at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even a half measure will do considerably more than what you want to do, which is nothing. Rather than trying to come up with better ways to handle the problem, you seem satisfied with letting innocent people get shot up, just as long as you get your boom binky.

The problem is that you are assuming that anything done to help the problem actually helps the problem. The vast majority of the proposals to help the situation will do little if any good, but they all come with costs.

Act wisely, don't just jump on the first bandwagon that comes along.

However, I've seen plenty of houses around with bars in front of the door but nothing on the windows. That's what you're trying to do.

Having bars on the door with nothing on the windows is still a lot better than just leaving the front door wide open, which is what you are advocating. So you can quit your whining about people not having a perfect solution. No go and open your front door nice and wide, show you actually do think half measures are no better than doing nothing at all.

The comparison is vs a house with locked doors and windows but no bars.

It's easier to go through a locked window than a locked door, yet they protect the locked door and not the locked window.

The only thing that does is allow you to open the door without compromising the security--potentially useful on the front door, of no value on the other doors.