Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:23 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm not looking to convince you of these factors and considerations. You don't strike me as someone that can be convinced of anything you don't already 'know'.
This is a weak insult you can throw against anyone. You have absolutely no reason to make this statement. I am, in fact, one of the most intellectually flexible person on these boards. I've changed my mind about significant issues since I came here.

You're not actually making an argument. You're just saying "well it's different, and I can't change your mind anyway so it's really your fault I can't make an argument"
  #52  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:29 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I am, in fact, one of the most intellectually flexible person on these boards.
Wait, did you just say that everybody but you on these message boards is absurdly inflexible? How dare you!

When dealing with ad hominems from anonymous people on the internet, it's best not to attempt to refute them. It doesn't help. So just do what I do and internalize your rage and hate them forever.
  #53  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
...I am, in fact, one of the most intellectually flexible person on these boards. I've changed my mind about significant issues since I came here.
....
Thank you (wiping tears of laughter), that was the funniest thing I have read on the internet in days!
  #54  
Old 06-12-2019, 05:59 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Thank you (wiping tears of laughter), that was the funniest thing I have read on the internet in days!
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. When I joined the board, I was libertarian-ish and was described by a lot of people as "conservative", and now I'm fairly close to pulling out the guillotines and singing The Internationale. I'm one of the worst targets of a "oh it doesn't matter that I can't put forth an argument, you'd never listen anyway!" people to target.

Edit: And if you're curious why DrDeth thinks I'm somehow inflexible (which he has no reason to think other than his repeated attempts over and over to get his way didn't work and often backfired) - you can see this hilariously pathetic attempt at a pit thread for some context. It has nothing to do with inflexibility specifically, but explains his general antagonistic behavior towards me that would explain how me saying something positive about myself is "the funniest thing I have read on the internet in days"

Last edited by SenorBeef; 06-12-2019 at 06:03 PM.
  #55  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. When I joined the board, I was libertarian-ish and was described by a lot of people as "conservative", and now I'm fairly close to pulling out the guillotines and singing The Internationale. I'm one of the worst targets of a "oh it doesn't matter that I can't put forth an argument, you'd never listen anyway!" people to target."
I am sorry, I honestly thought you meant that to be funny. Since, "no one here ever changes their mind from arguments" is a standard SDMB meme.

It'd be like saying "We are winning the fight against ignorance!"

You do a lot of sarcasm, so i thought that was a funny. Apologies.

In fact, we are mostly in agreement here in this thread, so that wasnt meant as a dig.

I guess i did that, I had no idea that you were the same person.

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-12-2019 at 06:16 PM.
  #56  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:15 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,547
Not sure why I should care if you've embraced Marxism by now. Your position on guns hasn't changed since as far back as, well, not at all AFAICT. That's what we're discussing. Not your self-described intellectual flexibilities. And if you have to tell people...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #57  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:25 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,132
So if I've changed my opinion on dozens of topics, but haven't changed on one on which you disagree with me, then I'm clearly intellectually inflexible? That's just pure narcissism. You have difficulty with the idea that someone who disagrees with you may be right, so instead you make non-arguments, and then make excuses for your non-arguments ("you wouldn't have changed your mind anyway!") - this behavior is unworthy of any sort of debate, great or otherwise.

Edit: In case I have to spell it out for you, saying "you're not capable of changing your mind so I'm not going to bother to make an argument" is absolutely disproven if I've changed my mind about anything through argument.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 06-12-2019 at 06:27 PM.
  #58  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:27 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
So if I've changed my opinion on dozens of topics, but haven't changed on one on which you disagree with me, then I'm clearly intellectually inflexible? That's just pure narcissism. You have difficulty with the idea that someone who disagrees with you may be right, so instead you make non-arguments, and then make excuses for your non-arguments ("you wouldn't have changed your mind anyway!") - this behavior is unworthy of any sort of debate, great or otherwise.
Unlike your super-defensive assertions about your own awesomeness, which are super-debateworthy. And on-topic!
  #59  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:32 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Unlike your super-defensive assertions about your own awesomeness, which are super-debateworthy. And on-topic!
He chose to make my inflexibility on-topic. He essentially said "I could make an argument, but I could never change your mind anyway"

So it's completely relevant to point out that I have changed my mind, and I could prove it with posts on this very board if someone wants to try to make me do homework for some reason. Instead, it points out that his unwillingness to make an argument stems likely from his inability to use an argument. He tried, instead, to place the blame for his inability to make an argument for my asserted inability to evaluate an argument anyway.

His whole line of non-argument is a veiled ad-hominem and unworthy of debate. He meant it generically - I doubt he even knows anything about my opinions - because I'm sure he uses "I'd make an argument but you wouldn't listen anyway, but my argument would've been totally awesome!" as a normal course of debate when he has nothing of value to say. But it's especially bogus when he uses it on a person who has dramatically changed his world view based on arguments.
  #60  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:34 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,775

The Moderator Speaks


You both will stop personalizing things right now.

I hope thatís clear.
  #61  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:41 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,547
Understood.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 06-12-2019 at 06:42 PM.
  #62  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:30 PM
Mosier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vegas
Posts: 7,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I hate to say "Americans are just a more violent people in general" but I can't see any other explanation for it. You can filter out things like gun ownership rate, violent entertainment, etc. and the USA is still significantly ahead of other Westernized nations in mass shootings. There is simply no explanation other than that Americans are more prone to having mass shooters in their midst. Sure, the prevalence of guns helps enable it, but filtering even that out, Americans are just more violent.
Careful there. Many people have made the exact argument you just made, word for word, except replace "Americans" and "USA" with "Blacks". It's the wrong argument in both cases, and for the same reasons.

Also, if one was to accept your argument as truth, then what would be the point of trying to address the shootings in America by using laws and social policy? After all, we're just more violent people in general, right? No amount of lipstick is going to make that pig learn algebra.
  #63  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:59 AM
Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 17,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
... general attitude of Canadians with respect to guns, all play a huge roll in public attitudes about guns and their utility/acceptability with respect to settling personal problems and social grievances.
This bears repeating. Most Canadians do not see guns as weapons; rather, they are sporting equipment, used for hunting or competition. Farmers use them for varmint control (the proverbial "fox in the henhouse," for example). It is true that some Canadians would like to be able to use guns for home defense, but I'd guess that they are a minority of Canadian gun enthusiasts. The attitude is totally different.

Interestingly, I belonged to a shooting club for years. You could call your firearm pretty much anything you liked on the range: "gun." "rifle," "piece," or even "Ol' Betsy," but you did not call it a "weapon." Doing so would get you a warning from the range officer; and like the SDMB, if you accumulated enough warnings, you'd be kicked out of the club. You didn't join our club to learn to shoot offensively or defensively; you joined to get good at punching holes in a piece of paper at a distance. Totally different attitude.
  #64  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:12 PM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,737
I'm guessing that it's been mentioned on the SDMB before, but I just ran across this. Mother Jones has compiled a database of mass shootings since 1982, downloadable as a spreadsheet. For their purposes, they define mass shootings as 'indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence." Since 2013, they have expanded the definition to include incidents in which 3 or more victims have been killed.

I discovered a couple of things while perusing the data, related to this thread. The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, ranks 'only' third in the number of fatalities, with 32. The most is the Vegas concert massacre, which had 58 victims, followed by Orlando with 49. In terms of total victims (fatalities plus injured), Vegas is first with 604, Orlando is second (102), Aurora theater third (82), and Virginia Tech fourth (55).

It was stated upthread that 'One noted sociologist claims that the big rise in student caused school shootings after Columbine was due to media attention and even glorifying the shooters.' Indeed, of the 17 school shootings in this database, five were before Columbine and 11 were after Columbine. However, Columbine happened in April of 1999; the next school shooting (the Amish school shooting) didn't occur until March of 2005, almost six years later. Also, of the 11 post-Columbine school shootings, only 3 were committed by current high school students. While it's certainly possible (and likely) that Columbine was part of the inspiration for subsequent school shootings, I believe that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the media coverage of Columbine caused the uptick in school shootings when the next one didn't occur for almost six years.

That data also seems to partially refute the compelling argument made by Senor Beef regarding media coverage. IIRC, the media coverage of Columbine was extensive, especially by the standards of 1999. And indeed, there were four more mass killings in 1999. However, after that, the massacres took a sharp downturn. There was 1 in 2000, 1 in 2001, 0 in 2002, 1 in 2003, 1 in 2004, and 2 in 2005. Then the frequency ticks upward again, as each subsequent year shows at least 3 incidents (except 2010, with 1). There is a massive jump in 2012, and each year since has seen a relatively large number of incidents; 2018 was the worst year on record, with 12. We've had 4 thus far in 2019.

So why was there a jump in 2006 and then another jump in 2012? I would agree that 24-hour coverage is a big reason, but I would also offer another possible factor: social media. Facebook and Twitter both became available in 2006, and were widespread by 2012. ISTM that every mass shooting since then has rapidly spread across those platforms, just like every other news story. A perpetrator these days can gain instant fame by committing the crime and social media will ensure that the news is immediately widespread.

IMHO, the spreadsheet compiled by Mother Jones is definitely worth downloading and viewing.
  #65  
Old 06-13-2019, 02:14 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
I would also offer another possible factor: social media. Facebook and Twitter both became available in 2006, and were widespread by 2012. ISTM that every mass shooting since then has rapidly spread across those platforms, just like every other news story. A perpetrator these days can gain instant fame by committing the crime and social media will ensure that the news is immediately widespread.

IMHO, the spreadsheet compiled by Mother Jones is definitely worth downloading and viewing.
That's a good point. The Christchurch mosque shooter was quite deliberate in making Internet meme references. You can see him making an Internet meme sign here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47649833 and if IIRC, he also made some meme references in his manifesto. He also livestreamed his shooting.
  #66  
Old 06-13-2019, 03:59 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier View Post
Also, if one was to accept your argument as truth, then what would be the point of trying to address the shootings in America by using laws and social policy? After all, we're just more violent people in general, right? No amount of lipstick is going to make that pig learn algebra.
Well, the damage can be mitigated. Even if mass shootings are bound to happen, one can still try to scale them back or snuff them out sooner.
  #67  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:02 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
I'm guessing that it's been mentioned on the SDMB before, but I just ran across this. Mother Jones has compiled a database of mass shootings since 1982, downloadable as a spreadsheet. For their purposes, they define mass shootings as 'indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence." Since 2013, they have expanded the definition to include incidents in which 3 or more victims have been killed.

I discovered a couple of things while perusing the data, related to this thread. The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, ranks 'only' third in the number of fatalities, with 32. The most is the Vegas concert massacre, which had 58 victims, followed by Orlando with 49. In terms of total victims (fatalities plus injured), Vegas is first with 604, Orlando is second (102), Aurora theater third (82), and Virginia Tech fourth (55).

It was stated upthread that 'One noted sociologist claims that the big rise in student caused school shootings after Columbine was due to media attention and even glorifying the shooters.' Indeed, of the 17 school shootings in this database, five were before Columbine and 11 were after Columbine. However, Columbine happened in April of 1999; the next school shooting (the Amish school shooting) didn't occur until March of 2005, almost six years later. Also, of the 11 post-Columbine school shootings, only 3 were committed by current high school students. While it's certainly possible (and likely) that Columbine was part of the inspiration for subsequent school shootings, I believe that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the media coverage of Columbine caused the uptick in school shootings when the next one didn't occur for almost six years.

That data also seems to partially refute the compelling argument made by Senor Beef regarding media coverage. IIRC, the media coverage of Columbine was extensive, especially by the standards of 1999. And indeed, there were four more mass killings in 1999. However, after that, the massacres took a sharp downturn. There was 1 in 2000, 1 in 2001, 0 in 2002, 1 in 2003, 1 in 2004, and 2 in 2005. Then the frequency ticks upward again, as each subsequent year shows at least 3 incidents (except 2010, with 1). There is a massive jump in 2012, and each year since has seen a relatively large number of incidents; 2018 was the worst year on record, with 12. We've had 4 thus far in 2019.

So why was there a jump in 2006 and then another jump in 2012? I would agree that 24-hour coverage is a big reason, but I would also offer another possible factor: social media. Facebook and Twitter both became available in 2006, and were widespread by 2012. ISTM that every mass shooting since then has rapidly spread across those platforms, just like every other news story. A perpetrator these days can gain instant fame by committing the crime and social media will ensure that the news is immediately widespread.

IMHO, the spreadsheet compiled by Mother Jones is definitely worth downloading and viewing.
nm

Last edited by Isamu; 06-14-2019 at 08:05 AM. Reason: dp
  #68  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:04 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
I'm guessing that it's been mentioned on the SDMB before, but I just ran across this. Mother Jones has compiled a database of mass shootings since 1982, downloadable as a spreadsheet. For their purposes, they define mass shootings as 'indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence." Since 2013, they have expanded the definition to include incidents in which 3 or more victims have been killed.

I discovered a couple of things while perusing the data, related to this thread. The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, ranks 'only' third in the number of fatalities, with 32. The most is the Vegas concert massacre, which had 58 victims, followed by Orlando with 49. In terms of total victims (fatalities plus injured), Vegas is first with 604, Orlando is second (102), Aurora theater third (82), and Virginia Tech fourth (55).

It was stated upthread that 'One noted sociologist claims that the big rise in student caused school shootings after Columbine was due to media attention and even glorifying the shooters.' Indeed, of the 17 school shootings in this database, five were before Columbine and 11 were after Columbine. However, Columbine happened in April of 1999; the next school shooting (the Amish school shooting) didn't occur until March of 2005, almost six years later. Also, of the 11 post-Columbine school shootings, only 3 were committed by current high school students. While it's certainly possible (and likely) that Columbine was part of the inspiration for subsequent school shootings, I believe that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the media coverage of Columbine caused the uptick in school shootings when the next one didn't occur for almost six years.

That data also seems to partially refute the compelling argument made by Senor Beef regarding media coverage. IIRC, the media coverage of Columbine was extensive, especially by the standards of 1999. And indeed, there were four more mass killings in 1999. However, after that, the massacres took a sharp downturn. There was 1 in 2000, 1 in 2001, 0 in 2002, 1 in 2003, 1 in 2004, and 2 in 2005. Then the frequency ticks upward again, as each subsequent year shows at least 3 incidents (except 2010, with 1). There is a massive jump in 2012, and each year since has seen a relatively large number of incidents; 2018 was the worst year on record, with 12. We've had 4 thus far in 2019.

So why was there a jump in 2006 and then another jump in 2012? I would agree that 24-hour coverage is a big reason, but I would also offer another possible factor: social media. Facebook and Twitter both became available in 2006, and were widespread by 2012. ISTM that every mass shooting since then has rapidly spread across those platforms, just like every other news story. A perpetrator these days can gain instant fame by committing the crime and social media will ensure that the news is immediately widespread.

IMHO, the spreadsheet compiled by Mother Jones is definitely worth downloading and viewing.
I remain unconvinced, it's just a correlation argument, at heart. But even if so, what is your suggestion to fix the problem?
  #69  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:33 AM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
I remain unconvinced, it's just a correlation argument, at heart. But even if so, what is your suggestion to fix the problem?
I certainly understand that correlation does not equal causation. But if one accepts Senor Beef's premise that saturated media coverage of one incident leads to another, then I think that all media outlets, including social media, share the blame.

My suggestion? I have nothing that has a chance of being implemented. Do you?
  #70  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
I certainly understand that correlation does not equal causation. But if one accepts Senor Beef's premise that saturated media coverage of one incident leads to another, then I think that all media outlets, including social media, share the blame.

My suggestion? I have nothing that has a chance of being implemented. Do you?
Well, there's only a handful of major media outlets. Shame them into it, have them stop glorifying these killers- voluntarily.

Unlikely, but certainly possible. And legal.
  #71  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:49 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,553
The Werther effect is a real thing. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think there is a similar effect with mass shootings.
  #72  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:34 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, there's only a handful of major media outlets. Shame them into it, have them stop glorifying these killers- voluntarily.

Unlikely, but certainly possible. And legal.
The thing about social media is that everyone becomes a major media output - the moment you post something exciting/interesting enough that people share it, you suddenly have an audience of millions.

Unless you significantly lock down (or shut down) social media, there's no way to shame this away.
  #73  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:41 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
This bears repeating. Most Canadians do not see guns as weapons; rather, they are sporting equipment, used for hunting or competition. Farmers use them for varmint control (the proverbial "fox in the henhouse," for example). It is true that some Canadians would like to be able to use guns for home defense, but I'd guess that they are a minority of Canadian gun enthusiasts. The attitude is totally different.
The psychology of this is similar, IMHO, to the drinking culture in the U.S. as compared to other western nations. I observed that people drank more and more often in the European countries I’ve been to, but not the dangerous binge drinking we do here.

I grew up with guns all over the house. My dad frequently showed them to us, took us shooting, etc.. But we knew not to touch Dads guns without his permission. We were educated and trained that guns were tools as well as weapons and we knew to respect that.

He did the same thing with alcohol. Even as young kids we would get a slug of Dads beer or a small glass of wine. He completely disarmed the forbidden fruit aspect of it. When we were at a wedding or other event and there was a drunk person acting the fool, he would point them out to us to show what alcohol abuse can do.

Both issues have an attitude aspect to them. Alcohol and so called “assault weapns” have been around for generations. Neither has changed. Our culture has.

Last edited by pkbites; 06-14-2019 at 05:42 PM.
  #74  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The thing about social media is that everyone becomes a major media output - the moment you post something exciting/interesting enough that people share it, you suddenly have an audience of millions.

Unless you significantly lock down (or shut down) social media, there's no way to shame this away.
Facebook is cracking down on quite of bit of bad stuff, so it is possible.
  #75  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:29 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
The only part of this that actually matters is gun culture. Our country could easily collect and destroy 400 million small steel objects. It would take some logistical work, to be sure, but it's all just basic block and tackle stuff.

The hurdle we can't jump is gun culture. Our existing gun culture means that it's politically impossible to pass sweeping reform, and even if you did, large numbers of owners would refuse to follow the law. It's not that we can't collect and destroy 400 million guns (because 400 million is too big a number), it's that tens of millions of gun owners will actively try to prevent a gun ban from working.
I agree 100% and I can only say that this is not stressed strongly enough or often enough. All the arguments against the feasibility of gun control, particularly that nothing can be done about the gun problem because of the number of guns already in circulation, or citing the strong support of gun rights among many, are all premised on the idea that gun control must be some kind of top-down authoritarian edict. The huge number of guns in public hands is hardly a problem if the culture is such that nobody wants the damn things, as it indeed is for most people in most other countries that don't have a gun problem.

The role of government in the American gun context has to be less about legislation and more about actively changing the mindset and the culture, which is admittedly a huge challenge, but so is the problem. And a problem it certainly is, to an extent that I suspect most Americans don't recognize. To quote Wikipedia, "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns."

Just consider that for a moment. The gun death rate is 25 times higher in the US than in comparable high-income countries -- not 25% higher, but 2500% higher! Nearly 15,000 people are killed by gun homicide every year, even more by preventable suicide which guns facilitate by making it so incredibly easy, quick, and fatal. Between 1968 and 2011, around 1.4 million Americans died from firearm injuries -- a figure more typically associated with a major war than with everyday life in a modern, rich, and ostensibly safe democracy. By any standard of epidemiology, it's an epidemic, and of all the things that people die from, gun deaths are probably by far the most easily preventable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I already gave one, Canada. Canada is #7 on the gun ownership per capita ratio worldwide and has basically no mass shootings. When they occasionally have something resembling one, their news media reports the incident but often refuses to even name the shooters, let alone give their whole story and a month of media focus. Finland is another. Iceland. Austria. Norway. Switzerland. New Zealand. All of them in the top 20 civilian gun ownership per capita countries, all with significant amounts of guns.
This characterization of the news media is not true. While there's a certain element of truth to the notion that news media in these other countries tends to be more responsible and less sensationalist than in the US -- compare, say, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a fairly sedate public broadcaster, with CNN -- it is not true that they shy away from full coverage of those rare mass shootings that do occur. In all cases that I can think of, the shooter was always named and the motivations openly discussed. Yet it didn't incite a bunch of copycats to come out with guns blazing. What it did, actually, was motivate discussions about even stronger gun controls, and increased public support for them.

As noted above, the really important difference between Canada and the US with respect to guns is not so much the number of guns, or particularly how the media handles gun violence stories; rather, the vividly startling difference is in the gun culture. Guns tend to be regarded as essentially utilitarian and inherently dangerous rather than as glamorous toys. If you substitute "case of dynamite" for "gun", you have a rough approximation of the cultural framework of guns in Canada for the majority of the population. I know that if I bought a bunch of guns and started bragging about them to my friends, they'd wonder what the hell was seriously wrong with me, whereas this seems to be an entrenched part of the American gun culture.
  #76  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:46 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,822
I forgot to include a link to the cited article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States
  #77  
Old 06-14-2019, 07:48 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
....
Just consider that for a moment. The gun death rate is 25 times higher in the US than in comparable high-income countries -- not 25% higher, but 2500% higher! Nearly 15,000 people are killed by gun homicide every year, even more by preventable suicide which guns facilitate by making it so incredibly easy, quick, and fatal. ...


I love when stats lie and are cherry picked. "comparable high-income countries" mean "nations we picked because they have a low homicide rate. Now, if you did limit it to OECD nations*, then you'd have to include (for example) Mexico which has a homicide rate four times that of the USA, and Columbia which has a rate five times that of the USA. Generally the Americas have a much higher homicide rate than Europe, despite strict gun laws. 16.3 vs 3.0 . So, it's not guns, it's being in the Western Hemisphere are opposed to Europe or Asia. Or it's not being a small nation. (Russia has a rate twice that of the uSA)


But if you dont cherry pick, and just go for ALL nations, the USA is smack dab in the middle. Slightly lower than average, in fact.


Then you claim "Nearly 15,000 people are killed by gun homicide every year," But from your own cite "In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the United States..."

* OECD use to be Euro nations, but it has expanded, Columbia is the newest member.
  #78  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:07 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But if you dont cherry pick ...

Then you claim "Nearly 15,000 people are killed by gun homicide every year," But from your own cite "In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the United States..."
LOL!!! "If you don't cherry pick". Check out the article again, and look at the graph. The latest two years on record were very close to 15,000.

I only point this out because of the sheer ridiculous irony of that accusation by someone who cherry-picked a year. And it doesn't even matter, because any of the numbers that have been fluctuating between roughly 10,000 and 15,000 gun homicides are so outrageously beyond all other comparable countries that it doesn't even matter what year you pick.

As for Mexico and what countries the US should be compared with, you sound like a broken record. We've heard it all before, again and again and again. Anyone seriously interested in solving the gun problem is going to seriously look at actual relevant facts, and not bring in comparisons with Mexico, or with Somalia or Yemen which might make the US gun death rates look even better. At least be forthright and just say "I like guns, and I think the deaths are worth it". Or is that too challenging a position to defend?
  #79  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:32 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,553

Moderating


This thread is specifically about mass shootings, not overall gun deaths or general gun policy, though there may be overlap.

Please stick to the topic and avoid these types of hijacks.

[/moderating]
  #80  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:33 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
In Germany virtually nobody has firearms besides law enforcement, and those who do take their guns home can only have a certain amount of ammo. When I found out about this the American in me immediately was triggered so I asked my friend, what if a criminal wants revenge and goes after the cop, or what if a criminal has a gun but nobody else does. To germans, I'm speaking based on my friends experience, gun crimes such as homicides aren't really even a concern. Nobody is thinking about some crazy guy shooting up a church, or worried the kid whos always bullied at school might bring his dads gun to show and tell. Apparently germans don't have gun problems because firearms were regulated for a long time, similar to Japan which historically has regulated the shit out of every weapon, bows, crossbows, swords, etc... hence japan has virtually no gun problems. The last thing on someones mind in these cultures is "does this guy have a gun and is he going to kill me"
If you can figure out how to run a Java JAR, here's an application I made a few years back that uses regression analysis (of the full set of all countries which had data for all of these variables) to backwards engineer the effect of different variables on the homicide rate:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a9jcc4a5ap...icide.jar?dl=0

I realize now that I was being stupid when I set it up and probably the link between gender ratio and homicide is that a reduction in men in the population could be correlated to a higher homicide rate because men are more likely to suffer a violent end and homicide is more prevalent in places where there is a lot of violence. This value might, accidentally, be a proxy for the homicide rate itself and thus biases the output. Just set it to zero and ignore it.

Otherwise, the formula is probably a fairly good indication of how the variables play out. But, note that it's a less good predictor of the actual homicide rate. The tool serves to give a sense of how everything plays together, not to let you determine the homicide rate.

Values for the US -

Gun Ownership: 120.5
Gender Inequality Index: 0.189
GINI Coefficient: 41.5
Ethnic Fractionalization: 0.491
Linguistic Fractionalization: 0.564700
Expected homicide rate: 7.89
Actual homicide rate: 5.35

And Germany -

Gun Ownership: 19.6
Gender Inequality Index: 0.072
GINI Coefficient: 31.7
Ethnic Fractionalization: 0.095
Linguistic Fractionalization: 0.164200
Expected homicide rate: 1.17
Actual homicide rate: 1.18

If you play around with it, I think that you'll determine that the GINI coefficient is the big dog. In general, you would save more lives by improving the income gap than by reducing the number of guns. And, in fact, reducing the guns might not have the effect you want. Right now, it predicts an increase in the homicide rate if gun ownership went down.

If you continue playing around, you'll find that the key to this is likely the presence of a sort of inverse relationship between gun ownership and linguistic fractionalization. If there's zero fractionalization then, on average, increasing gun ownership reduces the homicide rate. If there's mass fractionalization, then reducing the gun ownership increases the homicide rate.

That is to say, if everyone is white and talks like you, then guns kill people. If you live in a land of diversity, guns save lives.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...n-the-view-re/
  #81  
Old 06-14-2019, 09:37 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,564
"Austrian media guidelines have had an impact on suicidal behavior."

Viennese subway suicides showed a highly significant level shift (t = -4.44, df = 19, p <0.001) and a highly significant trend change (t = -4.20, df = 19, p <0.001) after the introduction of the guidelines.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #82  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:15 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
LOL!!! "If you don't cherry pick". Check out the article again, and look at the graph. The latest two years on record were very close to 15,000.

I only point this out because of the sheer ridiculous irony of that accusation by someone who cherry-picked a year. ...
Umm, that's because the last year we have solid data on is 2012 which is why your cite quoted it, the rest are extrapolations. I quoted your cite, I didnt pick a year.

But in any case, this has little to do with mass shootings, since mass shootings are a drop in the bucket for over all homicides rates.


Look at Railer13's Mother Jone cite. Even if we figure 10,000 gun murders a year, there's usually less that 100 people killed in mass shootings per year.

The only effective way we can reduce that is to get the media behind the idea of not glamorizing them. Look, the media usually doesnt name rape victims, right? Not due to a law, but due to public pressure.

https://archives.cjr.org/minority_re..._reporting.php

Why not put public pressure on them to not name mass shooters?

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-14-2019 at 10:16 PM.
  #83  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:22 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
The fact that people want gun control, can't get it, and endure mass shooting after mass shooting is evidence that we have something other than a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, but don't call it a democracy. That's not what we are.
  #84  
Old 06-14-2019, 10:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The fact that people want gun control, can't get it, and endure mass shooting after mass shooting is evidence that we have something other than a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, but don't call it a democracy. That's not what we are.
A varying number of people want gun control. Let us take assault weapons, since this thread is about mass shootings, OK?


https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/...lt-rifles.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' support for a ban on semi-automatic guns in the U.S. has dropped eight percentage points from a year ago, when opinions were more evenly divided after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Last year's measure was unusually high for the trend over the past several years; the current 40% is back to within a few points of where it was between 2011 and 2016...The latest findings, from an Oct. 1-10 survey, mark the eighth time since 1996 that Gallup has gauged public opinion on banning "semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles." These types of guns, which reload automatically but fire only once per trigger pull, have been used in a number of mass shootings in the U.S. in recent years.

Background: Support for banning assault rifles has changed over time. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a ban on assault weapons in the U.S. When Gallup first asked Americans about such a ban in 1996, 57% were in favor and 42% opposed. By the time the 10-year ban expired in 2004, support had fallen to 50%. In recent years, opinion has generally been against such a law, and an attempt to pass a new ban -- after the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting -- was defeated in 2013.


So about 40% of the people want a assault weapons ban and 57% oppose banning. Thus the will of the people has been followed.

Admittedly it varies, usually going up steeply right after a big, well publicized mass shooting.

But we cant ban them one year when 51% want one, the un ban when 57% dont want one.

Overall, year after year, historical average has 47% in favor of a ban. Not quite a majority.

Now get that to 60% and keep it there for a decade and you can complain about "we have something other than a democracy".

In any case, such a ban would not reduce the number of mass shootings. I concede the casualty count might go down a bit.
  #85  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:35 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The fact that people want gun control, can't get it, and endure mass shooting after mass shooting is evidence that we have something other than a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, but don't call it a democracy. That's not what we are.
This is true.

But, in a democracy we also wouldn't have mandatory seatbelts and the result of that would be far more deaths than are caused by mass shootings. In a republic, the bean counters and the people who think of the bigger picture have a larger sway.

If all of the political energy and money that goes to fight guns went to, well, just any of a hundred other things, you could save lives. Instead, because you would rather fall prey to a phobia of guns and ignore math, people die.

Irrationality would ban guns. Irrationality causes death.

Constitutional republics mitigate that, but only to an extent. It depends on how free they are to get their republicking on.
  #86  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:44 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Values for the US -

Gun Ownership: 120.5
Gender Inequality Index: 0.189
GINI Coefficient: 41.5
Ethnic Fractionalization: 0.491
Linguistic Fractionalization: 0.564700
Expected homicide rate: 7.89
Actual homicide rate: 5.35

And Germany -

Gun Ownership: 19.6
Gender Inequality Index: 0.072
GINI Coefficient: 31.7
Ethnic Fractionalization: 0.095
Linguistic Fractionalization: 0.164200
Expected homicide rate: 1.17
Actual homicide rate: 1.18
The USA has a hell of a lot of mass shootings to go to match the 6 million of Germany.
  #87  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:24 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This thread is specifically about mass shootings, not overall gun deaths or general gun policy, though there may be overlap.

Please stick to the topic and avoid these types of hijacks.

[/moderating]
Can we explore underlying assumptions? Like the one you're demonstrating, that mass shootings are somehow a different topic from general gun policy ("may be overlap" indeed), and not a subset of it? If you have any ideas of how to address the lesser problem without addressing the larger problem that includes it and fosters it, they would certainly be welcome.
  #88  
Old 06-15-2019, 09:14 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
If all of the political energy and money
How much energy and money is that exactly Mr. Math?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
that goes to fight guns went to, well, just any of a hundred other things,
Like what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
you could save lives.
Saving lives isn't the issue. Everybody dies. Preventing absolutely needless death is the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Instead, because you would rather fall prey to a phobia of guns and ignore math, people die.
Wanting to limit the availability of killing machines is not really a phobia by any reasonable definition. But go ahead and continue your own phobia of not having killing machines.

Last edited by Isamu; 06-15-2019 at 09:15 AM.
  #89  
Old 06-15-2019, 09:48 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
I certainly understand that correlation does not equal causation. But if one accepts Senor Beef's premise that saturated media coverage of one incident leads to another, then I think that all media outlets, including social media, share the blame.

My suggestion? I have nothing that has a chance of being implemented. Do you?
I sure do, thanks for asking!

First of all you start a media campaign focusing on handguns. Show how that while handguns might feel cool to own and wear, that they are actually uncool as they present a greater danger to you and your family than not having one. The fact that you own a handgun will almost never prevent someone else from killing you with a handgun, if they have an intention to kill you.

Work through media, not law.

That's just a start.
  #90  
Old 06-15-2019, 10:06 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,618
The reason that just one cause(reportage of mass shootings) is being pushed is that it allows the person pushing this to narrow the solutions to just one(censorship of the media) that he knows can never be implemented in real life.
  #91  
Old 06-15-2019, 10:21 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,553
Then how do you address the fact that media and reporting impact incidents of suicides, otherwise known as the Werther Effect?

Last edited by Bone; 06-15-2019 at 10:21 AM.
  #92  
Old 06-15-2019, 10:41 AM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
First of all you start a media campaign focusing on handguns. Show how that while handguns might feel cool to own and wear, that they are actually uncool as they present a greater danger to you and your family than not having one. The fact that you own a handgun will almost never prevent someone else from killing you with a handgun, if they have an intention to kill you.

Work through media, not law.

That's just a start.
I agree that this is a good idea. But who exactly is 'you'? Is it me, the average Joe citizen? How can I start a media campaign? Is it a gun control advocacy group like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? They issue press releases regularly, which are barely mentioned by the media. How can they, or other groups, conduct an effective media campaign?

I'm not trying to be snarky or play the devil's advocate here. I really want to know how you think this could be effectively implemented.
  #93  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:03 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Then how do you address the fact that media and reporting impact incidents of suicides, otherwise known as the Werther Effect?
I never said it wasn't a cause-But when it is pushed as the only cause worth talking about, and the only proposal is one that cannot possibly be implemented, then what is actually being pushed is no solution at all.
  #94  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:03 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
How much energy and money is that exactly Mr. Math?
Admittedly just eyeballing it, but the lobbying dollars pro and con look to be about $27m per year on average:

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...ds-nra-rights/

I suspect that it's greater than that, with local spending and loss of individual time, but we'll discount that for the sake of not getting distracted in something that probably isn't really germaine to what you want to know.

Quote:
Like what?
Obviously, I could simply say putting that money towards the top causes of death (e.g. cancer) since that's obviously the mathematical answer, but to be a little more fair to the concept that we're talking about unnecessary death here, let's look at the top preventable deaths.

1) Smoking
2) Medical errors
3) Obesity
4) Infectious diseases
5) Environmental contamination
6) Traffic accidents

Smoking, there is a fairly good effort to reduce so, while it is a leader, I don't that more emphasis is going to do more.

For medical errors, investigation into AI to interact with doctors and nurses to ensure that they don't forget anything would be useful and probably is very within the range of $27m+ spending per year to have added. If we even halved the number, then we would be saving something like 320,000 lives per year. If, somehow, reducing gun ownership didn't increase the homicide rate, despite projections that it would, a similar percentile reduction would be 15,000 lives. And we can note that the likelihood of the $27m+ having an effect on reducing gun ownership is liable to be lower than the likelihood that the money would help to combat medical errors.

A reduction in obesity by half could save 55,000 lives. This could likely be accomplished through the use of pricing laws that ensure that price if strongly correlated to portion size. It's like mandating that the sizes on women's clothing conforms to actual measurement standards and are consistent across the industry. You would mandate a minimum cost per portion, and that (per restaurant) the price of more portions is always more expensive than fewer.

I could go on, both with further preventable deaths and further measures per each type of preventable death that would be liable to reduce the number of mortalities that could be lobbied for or put into practice.

Quote:
Saving lives isn't the issue. Everybody dies. Preventing absolutely needless death is the issue.
I'll note that I have made no effort to remove the suicide count from the above 15,000, but if this is your philosophy then that 15,000 number should probably shrink.

Quote:
Wanting to limit the availability of killing machines is not really a phobia by any reasonable definition. But go ahead and continue your own phobia of not having killing machines.
Humans are killing machines, as history will attest. Gun homicides are going to reduce as a vehicle for mass murder over the next decade for the simple reason that it's not a very effective means of doing it and technology is improving the ability of crazy people to communicate ideas.

They have already discovered the power of the every day truck. Drive it through a crowd and you have murdered more people more easily and cheaply than you would have with a gun or bomb.

There are better things than trucks and guns, I assure you. Though, for that same reason, I refuse to name any.

Going forward, you can do whatever you want with guns, so far as mass murder is concerned. But if you want to save lives, improving our ability to detect and intervene with the lives of mentally unstable individuals is more important and likely more necessary.

The UK bans guns, that is true. But they also can forcibly institute you and put you on meds. There is no such ability here. And while there are reasons for it not being allowed here, as said, it may become necessary to deal with that a lot more than we will need to deal with guns, because guns are not an effective means of mass murder.
  #95  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:22 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,663
Woops, the 320,000 number should be halved. 160,000.
  #96  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:23 AM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Humans are killing machines, as history will attest. Gun homicides are going to reduce as a vehicle for mass murder over the next decade for the simple reason that it's not a very effective means of doing it and technology is improving the ability of crazy people to communicate ideas.
I wish I could believe this. But if you take a look at the Mother Jones database that I presented earlier, the data refutes this statement. While the number of mass murders using firearms is still quite small, the frequency is increasing. 2018 had the most mass murder incidents involving guns in our country's history, with 12. 2017 is second, with 11. If what you say is true, those numbers should be decreasing, right?
  #97  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:38 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
I wish I could believe this. But if you take a look at the Mother Jones database that I presented earlier, the data refutes this statement. While the number of mass murders using firearms is still quite small, the frequency is increasing. 2018 had the most mass murder incidents involving guns in our country's history, with 12. 2017 is second, with 11. If what you say is true, those numbers should be decreasing, right?
The population is increasing. By the same token, I could probably* say that infant mortality is at the highest it has ever been in all of history just since, even though the rate has declined massively from where it was a hundred years ago and through all of history before that, the total population is so much significantly larger than it has ever been in history, I wouldn't be surprised if in the raw count there were more infant deaths in 2018 than in 1208.

Though, I'll make it more clear that I don't believe that cars are making any strong headway against guns yet. I meant that I would expect that we would see it starting to do so over the period of the next decade.

* Maybe not, I haven't looked up the numbers. But hopefully you understand my point.
  #98  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:47 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,663
I should also note that two data points, one year apart, is not statistically meaningful. If I ate 3000 calories on Monday and 2000 calories on Tuesday, that's not strongly indicative that I'm now fasting on Saturday and will never eat again.
  #99  
Old 06-15-2019, 01:56 PM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
The population is increasing. By the same token, I could probably* say that infant mortality is at the highest it has ever been in all of history just since, even though the rate has declined massively from where it was a hundred years ago and through all of history before that, the total population is so much significantly larger than it has ever been in history, I wouldn't be surprised if in the raw count there were more infant deaths in 2018 than in 1208.

But hopefully you understand my point.
I see your point. But, if this is true, then the number of mass murder by firearms should have increased every year since the statistic was first recorded. After all, the population has increased in each of those years. But there was a sharp dropoff in the years 2000-2005, and then the number started climbing again. And in 2012 is when the number really jumped from the previous year, which I think bolsters my earlier point about the influence of social media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I should also note that two data points, one year apart, is not statistically meaningful. If I ate 3000 calories on Monday and 2000 calories on Tuesday, that's not strongly indicative that I'm now fasting on Saturday and will never eat again.
I used those two years to illustrate that the number is as high as its ever been and is still climbing.

The fact that the number has increased each year for the past 7 years is not statistically meaningful?
  #100  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Can we explore underlying assumptions? Like the one you're demonstrating, that mass shootings are somehow a different topic from general gun policy ("may be overlap" indeed), and not a subset of it? If you have any ideas of how to address the lesser problem without addressing the larger problem that includes it and fosters it, they would certainly be welcome.
Well, Mass shootings are quite different.

Most killings are done by criminals with handguns ("assault weapons are very very rarely use, like well less than 5%), usually during the commission of a crime or during a gang war. The violent crime rate is going down, we are actually doing a good job of reducing violent crime. We can fight violent crime by more jobs, better economy, better laws and police. Banning assault weapons wouldnt reduce violent crime at all. Better background check requirements would reduce criminals getting hold of guns.


Most mass shootings are done by maladjusted non criminals, who more often use "assault weapons", like 75% of the time. We can prevent more mass shootings by better mental health and getting the media to stop glorifying the killers. Banning assault weapons would likely reduce the body count. Better background check requirements would not reduce mass shootings.

The two problems are wide apart. And no constitutional gun control measure would reduce mass shootings (altho, as i said, it might reduce the body count).
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017