Another Mass Shooting - Guess the Country

[McBell]

Come on, a clinical research study from the American Journal of Medicine is bound to be methodologically unsound huh?
(The source of the Wiki chart)
The conclusion from that study:
"The United States has an enormous firearm problem compared with other high-income countries, with higher rates of homicide and firearm-related suicide. Compared with 2003 estimates, the US firearm death rate remains unchanged while firearm death rates in other countries decreased. Thus, the already high relative rates of firearm homicide, firearm suicide, and unintentional firearm death in the United States compared with other high-income countries increased between 2003 and 2010."
- https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

Have things improved since?

One of the problems with @Shaul s source is that they use the FBI definition of mass shooting:

From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” had been “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015). In 2013, the definition was changed to “three or more killings.” Many academics have continued to use the four or more definition.4 This includes researchers such as James Alan Fox. Even groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown have recently used the four or more definition.5​

​

So the shooting in KC would not be considered a mass shooting and be completely excluded.

Warning: the link below is to a PDF file

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the Un

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I bet it was a man with a penis.

Odd that you had to make that special distinction...

Or perhaps you think a trans-man would never do what a cis-man would.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How much freedom does a dead child have?

Just as much as you do to feel free not to go out on the street without being dressed in full-body armour.

Of course, I'm being facetious -- I get your point, and I admire that you think in those terms. It's a funny thing, I don't actually know anybody right now who owns a gun, so far as I know, and I certainly don't know anybody who carries one. And none of those people (including myself) feels in the slightest less free for not having them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Odd that you had to make that special distinction...

Or perhaps you think a trans-man would never do what a cis-man would.

It was a comment on the seemingly overly concerned attitude displayed in some quarters. A joke, in short.

 

[Secret Chief]

One of the problems with @Shaul s source is that they use the FBI definition of mass shooting:

From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” had been “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015). In 2013, the definition was changed to “three or more killings.” Many academics have continued to use the four or more definition.4 This includes researchers such as James Alan Fox. Even groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown have recently used the four or more definition.5​

​

So the shooting in KC would not be considered a mass shooting and be completely excluded.

Warning: the link below is to a PDF file

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the Un

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

So if I shoot 50 people then kill myself, that's not a mass killing. Sensible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They happen all over the world, actually. In Canada, Latin America and Europe, especially. But it seems like a lot of the non-US people on this board love bashing the US and and obsessing over what they think our problems are.

What I find astounding is that they don't include when governments use their guns on people, that somehow government doesn't count as being part of the issue of ballistic weaponry.

 

[Shaul]

One of the problems with @Shaul s source is that they use the FBI definition of mass shooting:

From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” had been “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015). In 2013, the definition was changed to “three or more killings.” Many academics have continued to use the four or more definition.4 This includes researchers such as James Alan Fox. Even groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown have recently used the four or more definition.5​

​

So the shooting in KC would not be considered a mass shooting and be completely excluded.

Warning: the link below is to a PDF file

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the Un

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

Using the FBI definition isn't a "problem". It is a sound definition. Furthermore the CPRC provides alternate analysis using alternate definitions.

 

[Shaul]

So if I shoot 50 people then kill myself, that's not a mass killing. Sensible.

You appear to misunderstand. Such an incident would be included.

 

[Shaul]

There is no link in post #48

It is in post #38, not #48.

So you have nothing for the specific site linked to in post #29?
Just a generalized "other sites suck" claim from the site the chart in post #48 is from?

The objection is still quite valid nonetheless.

 

[Father Heathen]

What I find astounding is that they don't include when governments use their guns on people, that somehow government doesn't count as being part of the issue of ballistic weaponry.

Excessive force by police is indeed a serious issue and I'm proud of you for recognizing it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Makes me wonder about mass shootings at gun shows.

I mean if it's actually the guns, logic would suggest crowded gun shows are prime hotspots for mass violence.

Everyone else there has guns too. Cowards shoot where no one is likely to shoot back.

 

[McBell]

It is in post #38, not #48.

The objection is still quite valid nonetheless.

Not really.
A blanket statement generalizing all other websites is as valid as a $3 bill.

 

[McBell]

Using the FBI definition isn't a "problem". It is a sound definition. Furthermore the CPRC provides alternate analysis using alternate definitions.

Actually it is a problem.
It is one reason why their numbers are so much lower.

The fact the KC shooting would not be included SHOULD be a dead give away.
But apparently not.

 

[McBell]

So if I shoot 50 people then kill myself, that's not a mass killing. Sensible.

That depends.
How many died?
For it to be a mass shooting according to the FBI, three people NOT including the shooter(s) have to die.

 

[McBell]

Everyone else there has guns too. Cowards shoot where no one is likely to shoot back.

Would that mean that "gun free zones" are merely a target practice shooting range for a would be shooter?

 

[Ebionite]

Yes, logic suggests that guns aren't involved in gun violence.

Your avoidance of Twilight's Hue's point only serves to highlight it. It's about the intangibles that were in play when the gun was used.

 

[F1fan]

That depends.
How many died?
For it to be a mass shooting according to the FBI, three people NOT including the shooter(s) have to die.

And yet to the many at the event who were not hit by bullets still had a similar traumatic experience to circumstances where shooters deliberately shot those their bullets hit. The reason so many people were hit by bullets was because of the density of the crowd. That actually helped victims survive since the bullets were randomly fired. If two more had died would that change any of the trauma to the citizens whose elebration was ruined? Citizens fear any sort of public gunfire. Citizens run for their lives.

 

[Shaul]

Not really.
A blanket statement generalizing all other websites is as valid as a $3 bill.

It has specific criteria. That isn't a "blanket statement". But I understand that you can't refute it.

 

[Shaul]

Actually it is a problem.
It is one reason why their numbers are so much lower.

The fact the KC shooting would not be included SHOULD be a dead give away.
But apparently not.

No, it actually isn't a problem. The FBI definition is a well established definition which can be applied universally across all countries. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it problematic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Everyone else there has guns too. Cowards shoot where no one is likely to shoot back.

That's why im trying to make a reasonable argument in support of Second Amendment gun rights. Primarily to illustrate it's not the guns, as this country always had guns, but rather something is going on with the people themselves that prompts them to engage themselves in these kinds of tragedies.

The number of firearms available in America has been pretty much a constant , but this country never had mass shootings to the frequency that it has gotten to now , which points out and establishes that there is another factor involved aside from the weapons themselves that needs to be discovered in order to address the issue of mass shootings properly and hopefully effectively.

I am however not against legal measures to reduce the lethality of weapons for which people rightfully show and have demonstrated that lethality increases with technology , a variable, so laws limiting things like bump stocks and magazine size would provide a proper temporary Band-Aid on the issue, but won't solve it until it is discovered precisely what triggers people to just go out and kill others as well as many instances killing themselves in a state of absolute madness.