The US is NOT the worst country for mass shootings

[Better]

most of those are due to terrorist acts, not citizens going crazy, and anyway those statistics are vastly misleading due to the massive population difference.

how can you even compare the two?

Not agreeing that the OP is good data, but the way you do this is by looking at numbers per capita over a long period of time, and know that if one occurrence happened somewhere with an incredibly small population it will skew the data. If such a thing happened leave it in with an asterisk, and a note at the bottom explaining that.

[Tijuana]

I am not refuting the fact. I saying the method that the website used is dumb. As far as I am aware, there has been only one mass shooting in Norway. However, because of the difference in population size, per capita wise, it would required 65 mass shooting events in the US to equal that one single event.

So, Norway has a larger mass murder problem, per capita? I agree!

[Cyberowl]

No facts I have presented have been countered. Why make up lies? Just because a certain researcher is disliked by you, or comes to conclusions you disagree with, does not make the facts presented untrue. You need to provide counter facts, if you intend to dispute these.

I gave my facts, let's see yours. Show me where mine are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



Thank you for that thoughtful and detailed contribution to the thread. I'm sure it will spur much debate!

I already did though. Souls doesn't need to waste his time if you are gonna skip the reponses that show just that.

[Tijuana]

Not agreeing that the OP is good data, but the way you do this is by looking at numbers per capita over a long period of time, and know that if one occurrence happened somewhere with an incredibly small population it will skew the data. If such a thing happened leave it in with an asterisk, and a note at the bottom explaining that.

What about 2-9 then? More asterisks? You get an asterisk, you get an asterisk, everyone gets an asterisk!!

[crusadernero]

I am not refuting the fact. I saying the method that the website used is dumb. As far as I am aware, there has been only one mass shooting in Norway. However, because of the difference in population size, per capita wise, it would required 65 mass shooting events in the US to equal that one single event.

But the problems US have with mass shooting every other day does not compare to what happend in Norway in 2011. They really cant be compared, so I dont really understand what this data is good for. How does it help? Making people in the US feel better and safer?

[zenkai]

Your data seems a bit off:

For example Norway:

1,88 deaths / mil / year * 7 years * 5,223 mil = 69 deaths for Norway, google says 77 were killed by Breivik alone.

And a reminder of sample bias. If you would have taken a loot at newer data (for example 2012 until now), you would have had like...0,01 deaths per ano per mil for Norway.


Don't trust data you haven't collected yourself.

LOL!! What the fuck kind of math this that.

[szechuan]

Great. Now show me where it's been done right. France? Belgium? Where? It seems to me that, despite all these gun bans, people are still committing mass murder. It's the darnedest thing. It's almost like blood thirsty killers don't even care about the law!

UK hasn't seen a mass school shooting since 1996.

[Revamp Man]

ya know what country has the largest mass shooting on record??? Australia and it has yet to be beat in the last 20 years

they have a gun ban

[Aflakk47]

So, Norway has a larger mass murder problem, per capita? I agree!

Yep. 77 people over the better part of a decade is completely equivalent to, on average, 20 people a day in America. Glad we can both see the false equivalencies in this data.

[Cyberowl]

What about 2-9 then? More asterisks? You get an asterisk, you get an asterisk, everyone gets an asterisk!!

Talking about asterisks...you wanna talk about statistical significance. Considering how you love facts. That's a pretty fact-y thing in science!

[Machismo]

Great. Now show me where it's been done right. France? Belgium? Where? It seems to me that, despite all these gun bans, people are still committing mass murder. It's the darnedest thing. It's almost like blood thirsty killers don't even care about the law!

Also, step away from the shift key, and slowly back away. Just stop...with the random capitalized words for no reason.

Well, gun violence in Australia has gone way down, and it is quite low in most of Western and Northern Europe.

[crusadernero]

So, Norway has a larger mass murder problem, per capita? I agree!

Yeah sure, there are lots of people running around in Norway with automatic rifles killing people.

In what way does this help you and USA with the violence you are having? Is it just "look here, its much worse there. We can relax" ?

[Cyberowl]

LOL!! What the fuck kind of math this that.

It's called multiplication with data provided by a quick google.

[Krigaren]

It looks like guns are banned in most of the countries listed. How are there gun deaths in places where there are no guns allowed?

What an incredibly intellectually dishonest article.

Using population as a means to average out the severity of mass shootings will, of course, drop the US into a lower number. Even worse when the numbers are massaged so that it only shows incidents involving more than 15 deaths, which limits the field even more while elevating events like the one in Norway.

Point of fact, Norway, the country at the top with the "worst" rate, is a country of 5 million, and had 1 mass shooting in 2011 that involved 67 deaths and 110 injuries. In the last 5 years, the United States has 1,624 mass shooting events involving 4 or more people, which is the commonly understood definition of a mass shooting, has resulted in 1,875 deaths and 6,848 injuries.

The other countries you listed have also likewise had low numbers of total casualties but involved a few rare incidents with large numbers of deaths, some of which were the result of terrorist activity.

Also, some of the countries - like Serbia - have a gun culture similar to the United States and every country listed allows some sort of gun ownership, be it for sport or hunting, so guns aren't banned at all.

The whole thing is incredibly dishonest.

[Machismo]

ya know what country has the largest mass shooting on record??? Australia and it has yet to be beat in the last 20 years

they have a gun ban

Well, they have a gun ban because of that...

[Rasulis]

Great. Now show me where it's been done right. France? Belgium? Where? It seems to me that, despite all these gun bans, people are still committing mass murder. It's the darnedest thing. It's almost like blood thirsty killers don't even care about the law!

Also, step away from the shift key, and slowly back away. Just stop...with the random capitalized words for no reason.

Why not compare it against China or Japan whose population size is more comparable to the US. Trying to compare US per capita mass shooting rate against countries with less than 1/60th of the US population is silly.

[Milchshake]

You are demonstrating cherry -picked data, and that has already been pointed out. You are flat out lying by doing it.

The OP was caught building his thread on fraudulent data. You might say it was an accident caused by hot linking something from his facebook feed. Or maybe it was willful fraudulence on the OP's part considering all the sealioning in his own defense. But forum rules prevent us from calling this trolling.

We're all Skroe now!

[Deleted]

There are UNDENIABLE tables presented. Unless you have other data, you really aren't refuting what I presented, you are refuting what the facts mean. That is your right, obviously. But denying truth, because someone you don't like said it, doesn't make you virtuous.

Also, I love the plea to the mods to close a thread, because you don't like it. If you don't like it, then just don't post in it.

Just because you put something in a table doesn't mean it's undeniable, or that it is representative of the real world.

There are a couple of things that stand out here with just a very quick glance at this piece. Firstly, what they consider a mass shooting. The US doesn't have a clear definition for a mass shooting but from what I can see most settle around a number of 5 killed (some include injured people in that also), why has this study chosen 15 killings for the definition? Secondly this study chose to exclude all other crimes, except terrorism, why?

Secondly a ranking of lethality per mass shooting is fucking stupid if you want to measure how many mass shootings there were, not even sure why this is included.

[crusadernero]

You should check out San Marino. Pretty small country. If 4 people dies there, maybe they will outrank US with % and you can all relax and keep shooting up schools knowing its perfectly normal.

[Machismo]

Someone seems to want to misrepresent how many people are killed in the United States by mass shootings;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.189c585eda2f

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States

I'm a 2nd Amendment purist, and want no restrictions to the right to bear arms. It's none of the government's business what firearms a person chooses to own. That being said, the OP is pushing a bullshit narrative.