The US has an epidemic of mass shootings?

[Loren Pechtel]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Brazil.... WTF? People murdering each other like crazy. By comparison, Japan.... land of serenity.

 

[laughing dog]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

Because
1) the per capita comparison mask the absolute frequency and the absolute number of victims, and
2) coming in 11th or 12th in the world (in over more than 200 countries) can still be viewed as an epidemic.

 

[TV and credit cards]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

The founder and president of CPRC might know why.

 

[ronburgundy]

Those data exclude that last 26 months, in which there were 17 mass shootings in the US, which is the most in any 26 month stretch in US. Plus 2 of those 26 were the deadliest (by far) in US history, and another 2 were in the top 8 deadliest. Including the non-fataly wounded, there were 894 mass shooting victims in the US in the last 26 months. That is 34.38 victims per month, which 700% higher than the 5 victims per month in the preceding 26 months and about 1300% greater than the 2.66 victims per month throughout the decade of the 1990s.
The US would be about tied for third on that list, if looking at the last 26 months.

BTW, let's look at the handful of countries ahead of the US on that list. Only 7 would qualify as stable first world democracies. Of those, 3 are among the top 4 first world democracies with the most guns owned per capita, and 2 more are in the top 8.
IOW, among first world democracies, 6 out of the 8 with the most mass shootings are also in the top 10 for number of guns per capita. Coincidence? Not to any remotely rational person it's not.

 

[Frikki]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

Why is this data for only 6 years? Are they cherrypicking and did you fall for it because you are biased yourself and just Googled "stuff that tells me what I want to know".

I looked at the "source" that Rambo posted and of course it is John Lott an noted shill and moron.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

Because
1) the per capita comparison mask the absolute frequency and the absolute number of victims, and
2) coming in 11th or 12th in the world (in over more than 200 countries) can still be viewed as an epidemic.

Restated: 1) The facts say something different than your position. Per capita is almost always a better measure than per country.
As for 2) Apparently you didn't pay any attention to what that chart actually shows. That's not looking at the world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those data exclude that last 26 months, in which there were 17 mass shootings in the US, which is the most in any 26 month stretch in US. Plus 2 of those 26 were the deadliest (by far) in US history, and another 2 were in the top 8 deadliest. Including the non-fataly wounded, there were 894 mass shooting victims in the US in the last 26 months. That is 34.38 victims per month, which 700% higher than the 5 victims per month in the preceding 26 months and about 1300% greater than the 2.66 victims per month throughout the decade of the 1990s.
The US would be about tied for third on that list, if looking at the last 26 months.

BTW, let's look at the handful of countries ahead of the US on that list. Only 7 would qualify as stable first world democracies. Of those, 3 are among the top 4 first world democracies with the most guns owned per capita, and 2 more are in the top 8.
IOW, among first world democracies, 6 out of the 8 with the most mass shootings are also in the top 10 for number of guns per capita. Coincidence? Not to any remotely rational person it's not.

The data is old, of course it doesn't have more recent stuff!

17? The Mother Jones data--which looks to me to be the best out there--doesn't have 17. And I only see #1 and #4 in 2017-2018 and nothing else anywhere near the top.

 

[laughing dog]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

Because
1) the per capita comparison mask the absolute frequency and the absolute number of victims, and
2) coming in 11th or 12th in the world (in over more than 200 countries) can still be viewed as an epidemic.

Restated: 1) The facts say something different than your position. Per capita is almost always a better measure than per country.

Not when one means by "frequency" how often in time these instance occur.

As for 2) Apparently you didn't pay any attention to what that chart actually shows. That's not looking at the world.

Why do you think the 1st chart omits most of the world? Hmmmm.

And, as ronburgundy pointed out, your link omits the last 26 months of shootings which would move the already bogus ranking of the US up considerably.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Speakpigeon]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

We had a lot of public killings in recent times committed for political reasons, i.e. by terrorists, including before 2009 (All of them done in the name of Islam as far as I can remember, but this is irrelevant here, except that it explains why so many of them in recent times).

I don't see the term "mass shootings" as appropriate for politically motivated public killings. "Terrorism" is the appropriate term, I think.

In my view, gun control doesn't much reduce the casualties of terrorist acts, essentially because terrorists will usually be organised and their organisation will usually be able to circumvent gun control laws, making the procuration of guns or even bombs, much easier for the individual committing the act.

So, as I see it, we would need to have a statistic that excludes acts of terrorism, just as we want to exclude suicides because you don't need a gun anyway if you want to kill yourself. We may want to also exclude accidents where the owner of the gun kills himself because people who choose to have a gun to begin with should know guns are dangerous. But we don't want to exclude accidents where somebody else is killed. Etc.

I couldn't find the relevant statistic but the statistic you give here isn't good enough and certainly looks suspicious to me for the very reason that it doesn't make the distinction between terrorism and mass shootings committed by individuals acting on their own.

It would also be necessary to distinguish the kind of guns people have. Typically in France, people will have a gun for hunting, and essentially double-barrelled shotguns. Not something you would want to use to kill many people. So, even the statistic for gun ownership is seriously misleading.

And I suspect there are other aspects I can't think of just now.
EB.

 

[Lugubert]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

If you subtract the Norwegian Anders Breivik, who shot 69 young socialists dead, Norway would probably be down at Swedish levels for homicides, and a homicides per gun quotient as low as Sweden and Switzerland.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

Well gosh... I guess there is nothing to worry about then. Thanks for some stat spin to make this problem become a top 12 issue and not the globe’s worst.

 

[ronburgundy]

Those data exclude that last 26 months, in which there were 17 mass shootings in the US, which is the most in any 26 month stretch in US. Plus 2 of those 26 were the deadliest (by far) in US history, and another 2 were in the top 8 deadliest. Including the non-fataly wounded, there were 894 mass shooting victims in the US in the last 26 months. That is 34.38 victims per month, which 700% higher than the 5 victims per month in the preceding 26 months and about 1300% greater than the 2.66 victims per month throughout the decade of the 1990s.
The US would be about tied for third on that list, if looking at the last 26 months.

BTW, let's look at the handful of countries ahead of the US on that list. Only 7 would qualify as stable first world democracies. Of those, 3 are among the top 4 first world democracies with the most guns owned per capita, and 2 more are in the top 8.
IOW, among first world democracies, 6 out of the 8 with the most mass shootings are also in the top 10 for number of guns per capita. Coincidence? Not to any remotely rational person it's not.

The data is old, of course it doesn't have more recent stuff!

So, why are you citing old data to counter a claim about what is currently happening?

17? The Mother Jones data--which looks to me to be the best out there--doesn't have 17. And I only see #1 and #4 in 2017-2018 and nothing else anywhere near the top.

You're right, not 17, actually 19 in just the past 24 months sine 2.20.16. that your link doesn't include.

If you take each 2 year period since 2000, the number of US mass shootings follows a steady increase of 2, 1. 3, 7, 7, 4, 12, 11, then 19 for 2016 to today. That is a correlation mass shootings and number of years since 2000 of r = .89.

As for severity of the events, Vegas and Orlando were the two deadliest ever, and then the 2017 Texas church shooting was #5, then last week's was #8. Also, the #3 and #4 deadliest were also within the last 11 years, so that is 6 of the 8 deadliest within the last 11 years. If a disease showed that kind of steady increase in number of outbreaks and 6 of the 8 deadliest ever outbreaks happened within the last 2 years, "epidemic" wouldn't be an unreasonable characterization and you'd be advised to get the fuck out of there.

BTW, don't forget to address the fact among the first world countries that are in the top 8 for mass shootings, 80% are also in the top 10 for # of guns per capita. You could combine every other possible variable and you wouldn't get close to being able to predict mass shootings in first world countries as strongly as you can with guns per capita.

And please don't pull the shit that Trautsi did with showing that gun ownership is low in third world nations ruled by murderous warlords with organized gangs who mow people down in the street with impunity. Besides not being relevant to the type of mass shootings in question, it is dishonest to treat such countries as though they have relevance to the cause of violence in first world democracies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today on the NRA’s new special, “We are much safer than Africa”...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

If you subtract the Norwegian Anders Breivik, who shot 69 young socialists dead, Norway would probably be down at Swedish levels for homicides, and a homicides per gun quotient as low as Sweden and Switzerland.

Which is why I said that that data point should be discarded.

 

[Speakpigeon]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

We had a lot of public killings in recent times committed for political reasons, i.e. by terrorists, including before 2009 (All of them done in the name of Islam as far as I can remember, but this is irrelevant here, except that it explains why so many of them in recent times).

I don't see the term "mass shootings" as appropriate for politically motivated public killings. "Terrorism" is the appropriate term, I think.

In my view, gun control doesn't much reduce the casualties of terrorist acts, essentially because terrorists will usually be organised and their organisation will usually be able to circumvent gun control laws, making the procuration of guns or even bombs, much easier for the individual committing the act.

So, as I see it, we would need to have a statistic that excludes acts of terrorism, just as we want to exclude suicides because you don't need a gun anyway if you want to kill yourself. We may want to also exclude accidents where the owner of the gun kills himself because people who choose to have a gun to begin with should know guns are dangerous. But we don't want to exclude accidents where somebody else is killed. Etc.

I couldn't find the relevant statistic but the statistic you give here isn't good enough and certainly looks suspicious to me for the very reason that it doesn't make the distinction between terrorism and mass shootings committed by individuals acting on their own.

It would also be necessary to distinguish the kind of guns people have. Typically in France, people will have a gun for hunting, and essentially double-barrelled shotguns. Not something you would want to use to kill many people. So, even the statistic for gun ownership is seriously misleading.

And I suspect there are other aspects I can't think of just now.
EB.

Here are the relevant details.

There have been two Islamist terrorist attacks in France in the 2009-2015 period, one in 2012 (7 killed), one in 2015 (148 killed). This is 155 killed in the 2009-2015 period, which is 22.14 victims on average per year.

If you subtract this from the 22.5 mass shooting victims on average per year alleged by your website, this leaves only 0.36 victim per year on average in the period, which is only 1.6% of the figure given by your website!!!

This really is either real incompetence or serious dishonesty.

Either way, your source is just ridiculous bullshit.
EB

 

[Lugubert]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

If you subtract the Norwegian Anders Breivik, who shot 69 young socialists dead, Norway would probably be down at Swedish levels for homicides, and a homicides per gun quotient as low as Sweden and Switzerland.

Which is why I said that that data point should be discarded.

Perhaps I should have pointed out that I wrote in support of that suggestion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Then why aren't we in the top 10 of either mass shootings per capita or deaths from mass shootings per capita?

(Although Norway is a sufficient outlier that that data point should probably be discarded, putting us at 10th place for deaths per capita.)

We had a lot of public killings in recent times committed for political reasons, i.e. by terrorists, including before 2009 (All of them done in the name of Islam as far as I can remember, but this is irrelevant here, except that it explains why so many of them in recent times).

I don't see the term "mass shootings" as appropriate for politically motivated public killings. "Terrorism" is the appropriate term, I think.

In my view, gun control doesn't much reduce the casualties of terrorist acts, essentially because terrorists will usually be organised and their organisation will usually be able to circumvent gun control laws, making the procuration of guns or even bombs, much easier for the individual committing the act.

So, as I see it, we would need to have a statistic that excludes acts of terrorism, just as we want to exclude suicides because you don't need a gun anyway if you want to kill yourself. We may want to also exclude accidents where the owner of the gun kills himself because people who choose to have a gun to begin with should know guns are dangerous. But we don't want to exclude accidents where somebody else is killed. Etc.

I couldn't find the relevant statistic but the statistic you give here isn't good enough and certainly looks suspicious to me for the very reason that it doesn't make the distinction between terrorism and mass shootings committed by individuals acting on their own.

It would also be necessary to distinguish the kind of guns people have. Typically in France, people will have a gun for hunting, and essentially double-barrelled shotguns. Not something you would want to use to kill many people. So, even the statistic for gun ownership is seriously misleading.

And I suspect there are other aspects I can't think of just now.
EB.

Here are the relevant details.

There have been two Islamist terrorist attacks in France in the 2009-2015 period, one in 2012 (7 killed), one in 2015 (148 killed). This is 155 killed in the 2009-2015 period, which is 22.14 victims on average per year.

If you subtract this from the 22.5 mass shooting victims on average per year alleged by your website, this leaves only 0.36 victim per year on average in the period, which is only 1.6% of the figure given by your website!!!

This really is either real incompetence or serious dishonesty.

Either way, your source is just ridiculous bullshit.
EB

1) Some of our big mass shootings were terrorism also.

2) Even if this explains France it doesn't explain all of them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here are the relevant details.

There have been two Islamist terrorist attacks in France in the 2009-2015 period, one in 2012 (7 killed), one in 2015 (148 killed). This is 155 killed in the 2009-2015 period, which is 22.14 victims on average per year.

If you subtract this from the 22.5 mass shooting victims on average per year alleged by your website, this leaves only 0.36 victim per year on average in the period, which is only 1.6% of the figure given by your website!!!

This really is either real incompetence or serious dishonesty.

Either way, your source is just ridiculous bullshit.
EB

1) Some of our big mass shootings were terrorism also.

2) Even if this explains France it doesn't explain all of them.

Either way, your source is just ridiculous bullshit.
EB