The US is NOT the worst country for mass shootings

[Tijuana]

He's a fucking fraudster you moron.

Thank you for that well thought out, and insightful contribution to the thread. I'm sure this will spark a new round of intelligent discussion.

[Deleted]

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.

As a purist, how do you view the fact that you can't own a nuclear missile, or a rocket launcher? They are arms, after all. If you're ok with that - would you be in favour of further restrictions?

And how/where do you draw the line?

[God Save The King]

Oh it's Beyond Fishy.

These links are officially busted

Ah thank you. Yeah I figured if they were legit, some reputable known outlet would be reporting it, not some gun right's blog.

[Deleted]

Some ppl regard most info they read as irrefutable facts, and when they conclude from those facts, they regard that conclusion to be factual aswell.

OP is just another young guy, with such a small view of how things work, he couldnt look past the palm of his hand.
only age and maturity will fix that. Hopefully.

[AceofH]

So let’s make murder legal because the fact that people still do it means laws are useless becuse people break them! Seriously can we stop using this idiot two year old logic like it’s new or clever. It’s not.

my point is that all you do by increasing the requirements is take guns out of people who follow the laws hands and make them unable to defend themself.

we have more people die to drunk drivers and medical malpractice each year then due to guns, which for HOMICIDE is at around 11,000 per year (the stat is 34,000 but that includes suicide and other such stuff).

we have laws against drunk driving and yet that still happens.

[jellmoo]

And if we use the media definition of a mass shooting (4 or more people shot) then the United States had 271 incidents in 2014 and 333 in 2015.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

But yeah, totally not the worst country for Mass Shootings.

[Tijuana]

If there was a single event that caused a large portion of the data to be skewed I see no harm in adding an asterisk. In fact in this data there should be sources for these numbers that breaks down when, and what happened specifically. Just showing data without context largely isn't very helpful in understanding what is happening, and why.

Should we add 209 asterisks, and just not give the US one?

I think showing per capita figures is actually pretty good context. I think it's actually the opposite of bad context, like listing murders by nation, with complete disregard for population.

I'm always told Chicago murders don't matter, because the city is so large. I'm told I need to look at per capita figures instead. But now that I want per capita figures, the SAME PEOPLE are crying foul. Imagine that.

[Draco-Onis]

It's because nobody can tell me what they do, that all guns don't do. It doesn't matter if it's designed for "warfare". All guns kill people. Every single one. Tell me SPECIFICALLY what about an AR-15 needs to be banned, and then tell me how that does not apply to every pistol made.

AR-15s shoot no faster than any other semiautomatic weapon. A Glock shoots just as fast, and holds more bullets.

Spare me your disgusting appeals to the dead. I didn't hear you boo hooing about the people around the world, who were murdered in their own homes, because they were not allowed to defend themselves. In the US, we are all up in arms over 17 kids dying at once, while we completely ignore THOUSANDS of other gun murders every year. The difference between 17 innocent people shot at once, and 17 shot one by one, is different, how exactly?

I am probably sure you don't realize that you are making arguments for more gun control far beyond just getting rid of the AR-15 but I don't expect you to respond nor get the irony here.

[Cyberowl]

Thank you for that well thought out, and insightful contribution to the thread. I'm sure this will spark a new round of intelligent discussion.

I'm sure the guy who won't acknowledge the data bias, which was pointed out by me, not counting others, like 4 times already, is TERRIBLY interested in an intelligent discussion.

[zenkai]

Um, that would be very basic math. Do you actually struggle with that? I can tutor you for a small amount of $20 / hour * 3 hours * 4 days /week.

He took the 2016 population and applied it to 2009-2015 population. I am sorry you didn't understand that and I had to correct you, must be embarrassing for you.

[AceofH]

No, it doesn't; it explains the numbers though and shows that even tough gun laws aren't a guaranty if your country is armed to the teeth already.

so explain the number of deaths we have due to drunk driving. I don't see anyone advocating to take away alcohol or cars. why not? we have more deaths due to those then we do guns

340,000 people a year die to medical malpractice. i am 31 times more likely to die in a hospital then i am from a gun used for homicide.

Food for thought.

[Eggroll]

If guns are the problem explain the near 200 killed or injured in china by a man with a knife...

More people are killed per year in alcohol related car accidents and due to medical malpractice then due to guns each year.

are we going to ban alcohol, cars, and doctors too?

Alcohol IS banned in some countries, drinking and driving is prohibited in most countries, yes, they are even developing self driving cars for exactly THAT reason.

The problem is that even alcohol, cars and doctors have a purpose other than killing someone. Alcohol has several purposes, some of them are even health related, a car brings you from a to b while even carrying your groceries for you and a doctor is usually there to fix health conditions.

An AR-15 is good for nothing but killing. It's a weapon of war. You might think you own your own mind. But your environment shapes you, want it or not. If there's weapons like that around all the time, it's only natural to think of it to be a natural part of your life. It simply lowers the inhibitions to use it.

[Cyberowl]

Should we add 209 asterisks, and just not give the US one?

I think showing per capita figures is actually pretty good context. I think it's actually the opposite of bad context, like listing murders by nation, with complete disregard for population.

I'm always told Chicago murders don't matter, because the city is so large. I'm told I need to look at per capita figures instead. But now that I want per capita figures, the SAME PEOPLE are crying foul. Imagine that.

Statistical outliers are a thing. Data bias is a thing. Your critical thinking...isn't a thing. Kuddos to you for stepping up your game on per capita though.

- - - Updated - - -

He took the 2016 population and applied it to 2009-2015 population. I am sorry you didn't understand that and I had to correct you, must be embarrassing for you.

Dude, it's Norway, not China. And as I already said, my math actually fits the Breivik death toll. Nice spin though, I give you a C for effort.

[AceofH]

Alcohol IS banned in some countries, drinking and driving is prohibited in most countries, yes, they are even developing self driving cars for exactly THAT reason.

The problem is that even alcohol, cars and doctors have a purpose other than killing someone. Alcohol has several purposes, some of them are even health related, a car brings you from a to b while even carrying your groceries for you and a doctor is usually there to fix health conditions.

An AR-15 is good for nothing but killing. It's a weapon of war. You might think you own your own mind. But your environment shapes you, want it or not. If there's weapons like that around all the time, it's only natural to think of it to be a natural part of your life. It simply lowers the inhibitions to use it.

guns have purposes too.
Self Defense. Hunting for food.

By the way. the mass majority of Homocides are not done by AR-15s. weapons commonly used for self defense purposes.

8,000 (of the 11,000 a year) via hand guns.

[Eggroll]

If Gun Control laws work so well, please explain Chicago and Detroit. Among other cities with strict gun control laws

Because the idiots just drive into the next state with lax gun laws....

[Xar226]

They specifically limited the definition of what a mass shooting is. It's also cherry picking data, and trying to skew results by refining the definitions even further. Honestly, this is bad science.

Because it is not science. Look at the sidebar of the site this "research" was published on and ask yourself if it appears to be an impartial entity.

Meanwhile, here is the reality: We have no idea how many gun crimes there are in the United States because Congress passed a law specifically precluding it from being studied. There is no central repository of facts because Congress has guaranteed there won't be. It can't be a public health crisis because Congress has forbidden it from being studied as one. Ask yourself: If there is truly no good evidence against guns, why would these laws be on the books?

[Tijuana]

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.

Show me figures that refute mine then. I'll wait.

[AceofH]

Because the idiots just drive into the next state with lax gun laws....

except you still have to register guns.

Good Try. the fact is that gun control will not prevent criminals from getting guns. it will only prevent the lawful from protecting themselves.

[Cyberowl]

so explain the number of deaths we have due to drunk driving. I don't see anyone advocating to take away alcohol or cars. why not? we have more deaths due to those then we do guns

340,000 people a year die to medical malpractice. i am 31 times more likely to die in a hospital then i am from a gun used for homicide.

Food for thought.

You won't see me advocating for: Loose alcohol restrictions, loose driving restrictions, loose drunk driving restrictions, loose medical practice guidelines.

Cars and hospitals have another purpose than just killing things and shooting stuff for fun, so their ban is stupid. An alcohol ban is stupid, because it doesn't work (as history shows).That's why we have restrictions for alcohol though.

[Blamblam41]

Dear Mods and community, this thread is a neat bit bait built on linking a known fraudulent research site.

Crime Prevention Research Center
https://crimeresearch.org/

Crime Prevention Research Center is run by John Lott, who makes the round on behalf of the NRA after every mass shooting.

John Lott's 'research' has been debunked multiple times, literally over decades.
https://www.mediamatters.org/researc...hn-lott/191885

Stanford Law Review: Lott's Central Hypothesis Is "Without Credible Statistical Support." In a Stanford Law Review report titled "The Latest Misfires in Support of the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis," Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III studied how coding errors in data undermine Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis. The authors explain:

PW [Lott's co-authors Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley] seriously miscoded their new county dataset in ways that irretrievably undermine every original regression result that they present in their response. As a result, the new PW regressions must simply be disregarded. Correcting PW's empirical mistakes once again shows that the more guns, less crime hypothesis is without credible statistical support. [Stanford Law Review, accessed 12/3/12 via Deltoid]

Computer Scientist Tim Lambert On Lott's Data Errors: "If Anything, Concealed Carry Laws Lead To More Crime." In an April 2003 blog post on ScienceBlogs.com, computer scientist Tim Lambert discussed Ayres and Donohue's Stanford Law Review findings, noting "Ian Ayres and John Donohue wrote a paper that found that, if anything, concealed carry laws lead to more crime." Noting that "Lott, (along with Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley) wrote a reply where they argued that using data up to 2000 confirmed the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis," Lambert summarized Ayres' and Donohue's response to Lott's defense of the data:

Lott Became Subject Of Ethics Inquiry After Failing To Produce Evidence That He Actually Conducted A 1997 Survey. A January 17, 2003 letter written by Northwestern University Professor of Law James Lindgren, raised concerns that Lott fabricated a survey that found 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved only brandishing a weapon. Lott has failed to produce the data from the study, claiming to have lost it in a computer crash. From Lindgren's letter:

Computer Scientist Tim Lampert And Sociologist Otis Dudley Duncan Summarized A Number Of Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Lott's Defensive Gun Use Survey. Among other points, Lampert -- a critic of Lott's research methods -- noted that Lott regularly cited the 98 percent defensive gun use statistic prior to when he says he conducted his research that reached that conclusion:

Lott Attempted To Cover Up Debunking Of "More Guns, Less Crime" Thesis By Changing His Statistical Model. From an October 12, 2003 Mother Jones article describing how Lott reacted to Yale Law School professor Ian Ayres and Stanford Law School professor John Donohue's revelation that fixing coding errors in his research caused Lott's conclusions to be undermined:

Lott Created A Fake Internet Persona To Defend His Research
Washington Post: Lott Posted Online Under The Pseudonym "Mary Rosh," Who Called Lott "The Best Professor I Ever Had." For three years, Lott repeatedly posed as an imaginary former student named "Mary Rosh." Rosh "tirelessly defended Lott against his harshest critics" in numerous online debates. From a February 1, 2003 article:

Mary Rosh thinks the world of John R. Lott Jr., the controversial American Enterprise Institute scholar whose book "More Guns, Less Crime" caused such a stir a few years ago.

In postings on Web sites in this country and abroad, Rosh has tirelessly defended Lott against his harshest critics. He is a meticulous researcher, she's repeatedly told those who say otherwise. He's not driven by the ideology of the left or the right. Rosh has even summoned memories of the classes she took from Lott a decade ago to illustrate Lott's probity and academic gifts.

"I have to say that he was the best professor I ever had," Rosh gushed in one Internet posting.

Indeed, Mary Rosh and John Lott agree about nearly everything.

Well they should, because Mary Rosh is John Lott -- or at least that's the pseudonym he's used for three years to defend himself against his critics in online debates, Lott acknowledged this week.

[...]

Lott said that he frequently has used the name "Mary Rosh" to defend himself in online debates. The name is an amalgam of the first two letters of his four sons' first names. In a posting to the Web site maintained by Tim Lambert, an Australian professor who has relentlessly attacked Lott's guns studies, "Mary Rosh" claims to be a former student of Lott at the University of Pennsylvania, where the economist taught between 1991 and 1995.

"I had him for a PhD level empirical methods class when he taught at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s, well before he gained national attention, and I have to say that he was the best professor that I ever had. You wouldn't know that he was a 'right-wing' ideologue from the class. . . . There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material." [The Washington Post, 2/1/03, retrieved via Nexis]

No idea why this fake news shit show thread hasn't been taken down and the OP infracted, but quoting for mods and reported, get outta here OP.