Originally posted by lazybones
Yes, and the problem with a per-capita ranking in this instance is that it vastly overstates the problem of mass shootings in small countries like Norway and Belgium, and portrays their anomalous one-off/infrequent mass shootings as part of actual trends of shootings in those countries. If I recall, the Breivik shooting in Norway was the only such incident since World War II.
It is true that Norway does serve as a somewhat of an outlier due to the nature of their shooting. That does not mean we should not adjust for population, because of one outlier. I agree it is understandable to disregard the statistics due to the broad brush which they paint. It is for this reason that I compare by states when I responded to Beni. However as my response demonstrates, the United States, still performs better when comparing by states. (This is in regards to median death rate/which essentially measures frequency). Of course, Norway is quite anomalistic in this regard as many of the countries on this list has had quite a few mass-shootings.
Originally posted by lazybones
If you look at the numbers without such manipulative spinning of the data, it is clear that the US leads in number of mass shooting incidents:
You are right they do leave out a lot of mass-shooting incidents. And not only that the list is bullshit. Let's start out with the amount that they missed. They missed,
Tours, France, Oct. 29, 2001: Four people were killed and ten wounded when a French railway worker started shooting at a busy intersection
Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: 8 deaths, 19 injured Gunman opened fire at a town council meeting
Toulouse, France, March 19, 2012: Four shot dead at Jewish school in FranceThere are also other attacks in France that met their criteria, but we would not normally collect
Toulouse, France, March 15, 2012: Two French soldiers killed and one critically injured, other minor injuries in drive-by street shootingTuusula, Finland, Nov. 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal killed at a high school
Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: Ten people shot to death at a college
Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: five people shot to death at a mallErfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002: A former student killed 17, one non-fatal injury at a secondary school.
Freising, Germany, Feb. 19, 2002: Four people are dead
Sittensen, Germany, February 4, 2007: Six people killed
Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: 15 deaths, 9 wounded
Munich, Germany, July 22, 2009: 9 deaths, 16 wounded by Iranian who yelled “Allahu Akbar” when he did the attackZug, Switzerland, Sept. 27, 2001: A man whose lawsuits had been denied murdered 14 members of a cantonal parliament.
Yaroslavsky, Primorsky Krai, August 25, 2002: 5 killed and 10 wounded. The Yaroslavsky shooting was a mass murder that occurred in Yaroslavsky, Primorsky Krai, Russia on August 25, 2002, when 40-year-old police captain Sergey Semidovskiy (Russian: Сергей Семидовский😉 killed five people and wounded ten others in and outside a bar with a Saiga carbine, after an argument with several customers.
Kizlyar, Republic of Dagestan, February 18, 2018: “Five women were killed and several others were injured after a gunman opened fire with a hunting rifle on people leaving a church service in Russia’s Dagestan region on Sunday, Russian media outlets reported.”Lipnaca, Bosnia-Herzegovina, May 29, 2008: six killed and one wounded
Jabukovac, Serbia, July 27, 2007: Nine killed and three wounded
Mumbai, India, November 26th to 29th, 2008: Islamic terror group based in Pakistan named Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure) killed164 and wounded 308.
Jammu, India, July 22, 2002: Islamic militants killed 27 Hindus and injured at least 30 others, some critically
Gujarat, India, September 24 and 25 2002: To terrorists attacked the Akshardham temple complex and killed 31 people and wounded 80 others by using automatic weapons and hand grenadesPunjab, India, July 23, 2015: Islamic terrorists killed 7 people and wounded at least 15 others. Other Indian cases may be found here.
Mamudo, Yobe State, Nigeria, July 6, 2013: Islamic group Boko Haram killed 42 children and teachers at a boarding school.
Gujba, Yobe State, Nigeria, September 29, 2013: gunmen from the Islamic group Boko Haram entered the male dormitory in the College of Agriculture and killed “as many as 50 dead.” Most of the dead were Muslim college students.
Borno massacre, in Konduga, Borno State, on February 14, 2014: Boko Haram Islamic militants killed at least 121 Christian villagers.
Izghe, Borno State, February 15, 2014: Islamic group Boko Haram killed 105 men and 1 elderly woman
Yobe State, Nigeria, February 25, 2014: 59 boys were killed at the Federal Government College of Buni Yadi. The boys were separated from the girls and the young girls were told to get married at a very early age.
Gamboru and Ngala in Borno State, Nigeria, May 5 and 6, 2014: Boko Haram Islamic militants killed more than 300 residents.
Borno massacre, in Konduga, Borno State, on May 7, 2014: Boko Haram Islamic militants killed at least 200 Christian villagers. Several others were injured.
Manila, Philippines, December 20, 2013: Philippines mayor and 3 others killed in shooting at Manila airport. “[D]ead include Ukol Talumpa, the mayor of Labangan, a town in the southern Philippines, and his wife and 28-year-old niece, said Supt. Jose Erwin Villacorte, director of the Manila region’s Southern Police District.”
Kawit, Cavite, Philippines, January 4, 2013: Ronald Baquiran Bae shot to death 8 people and wounded 12 others. “On Jan. 4, a failed local candidate opened fire on his village neighbors, killing 8 people — including a pregnant woman and child — and wounding 10.”
Ipil, Philippines, April 3, 1995: The Islamic Command Council fired on residents and took hostages. 53 civilians killed. Not clear that this should be classified with the other cases because much of the attack involved robbing of eight banks.
Maguindanao, Mindanao, Philippines, November 23, 2009: Andal Ampatuan, Jr. and his clan (a “leading Muslim political clan“) attacked Esmael Mangudadatu’s family members and supporters, and accompanying journalists. 57 killed (34 were journalists) and at least 4 wounded. The victims were on their way to file a certificate of candidacy for Esmael Mangudadatu, vice mayor of Buluan town, they were kidnapped and killed.
Baku, Azerbaijan, April 30, 2009: Farda Gadirov shot to death 12 people (students and staff) at the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 7, 2011: Wellington Menezes de Oliveira shot to death 12 children between the ages of 12 and 14 at the Tasso da Silveira Municipal School
Tel Aviv, Israel, June 7, 2016: Two attackers were both dressed as Orthodox Jews started shooting at around 10 p.m. local time in an upscale area of cafes and restaurants near the central military headquarters and Defense Ministry compound. At least 4 died.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg; it is entirely possible that they missed far more, as this is only a cursory analysis. The second problem with this data is that it doesn't use the proper definition of a mass shooting. They included shootings which resulted in injuries, not just fatalities; this especially hurts the US. Motherjones, for example, has counted 72 mass-shootings from 1986 to 2015 and the list posted only looks from 2010-2014. And Motherjones list doesn't even fully adhere to the FBI's definition of a public area. The Washington Post even recognizes the dubiousness of this list,
Plus, the Schildkraut/Elsass list is not exhaustive; they are still compiling the list of shootings in other countries, and it does not include all of the shootings that may fit their definition.
To conclude, the most accurate way to compare mass-shootings is to go state by state. And as I show above in my debate with Beni, that comparison still favors the US.
Originally posted by cs_zoltan
DS0, f-ucktards like you why we keep seeing dead children in the news every month. Keep it up, eventually you'll eradicate the whole US for the benefit of everyone else.
Originally posted by KurkSure but that’s hardly enough to credit him with the overall quality of the show, which would ultimately be down to its executive producers. Much in the same way Filoni only directed TCW, it was produced by George, which is why it’s still better than Rebels. 🙁
He directed the pilot episodes and some others in season 1 according to the wiki.
I was comparing frequency, not mortality, but regardless you are wrong. OUT OF THE FUCING WATER HAHAHAHA! Sel, what are you talking about. Connecticut has fewer murders and casualties then Norway.
Due to a single attack that is a huge outlier when compared with the rest of the history of the country. For the record, D.C. was still ahead of Norway, which is staggering.
In Norway, 67 people died from gunfire, so when you adjust for population and expand the time frame to post WW2, Connecticut actually does manage to edge out the Norwegians as well.
This is besides the point though, my entire argument was that without resorting to biased statistical methodology, (like the one you're using) claiming Europe is just as bad as the United States is farcical. For you to then use the same biased methodology to clap back is circular at best, grandstanding at worst. Just as a side note, I haven't seen someone type an all caps laugh since 2014, so that was cute.
Anyway...
Also, if you look at the chart above the US does not start to win.
Debatable, given the fact the United States takes 9 out of the top 15 spots. I'll admit I misspoke slightly, I was equating the United States with representing countries that had laxer gun laws. I suppose your incorrect intervention here is due to you replacing Freshest (for some reason) in responding to me, but allow me to clarify.
I was responding to this claim:
And for the record, the places with the most intervention have the most mass shootings
Which was Freshest claiming that the places with the laxer gun laws have the most mass shootings. I attempted to show that your original methodology was flawed, which I stand by, but did not have the data to actually calculate every country's mass shootings. For the record, I believe that when you break the US down into constituent states, it would start dominating the list for frequencies as well.
I merely looked at mortality because it was the data I have available, so let's look at the list you posted and see whether The US places with stricter gun legislation have worse mass shootings, looking at the Top 15 again.
Washington D.C.
Norway
Connecticut
Serbia
France
Macedonia
Oregan
Colorado
South Carolina
Washington
Albania
Nevada
Slovakia
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Suddenly 11 out of 15 of countries with the worst mortality rates are states with permissive gun regulation. Furthermore, Slovakia has a troubling problem with illegal gun smuggling which the government has trouble cracking down on due to their economy, which could explain why they're higher, further investigation would be required however.
Essentially, the vast majority of countries on your list have liberal gun laws, and those that don't like Norway (potentially France) would disappear if the time period was expanded to be apolitical. That's the important part of this discussion.
Oh and as a side note, yes, using one country's law enforcement definition for a mass shooting when comparing several different countries is biased, especially when there's such conflicting opinions. You're attempting to lend unwavering credulity to the FBI as being more knowledgeable than us, and giving better definitions, when the United States Congress can't even subscribe to it, having enacted into law a different definition, and using another definition still for some of their investigations.
Originally posted by Selenial
Due to a single attack that is a huge outlier when compared with the rest of the history of the country. For the record, D.C. was still ahead of Norway, which is staggering.In Norway, 67 people died from gunfire, so when you adjust for population and expand the time frame to post WW2, Connecticut actually does manage to edge out the Norwegians as well.
Staggering... It's cute that you think Norway is the only area which has outlier mass-shootings. Between the same time horizon, 2009-2015 Washington DC has had only one mass-shooting. Now, I tried to find your claim about the extended time-frame as you never shared a source. But, unfortunately, I could not. Regardless, Connecticut, like Norway, has only had two mass-shootings. So, I would be curious to see your source.
Originally posted by Selenial
This is besides the point though, my entire argument was that without resorting to biased statistical methodology, (like the one you're using) claiming Europe is just as bad as the United States is farcical. For you to then use the same biased methodology to clap back is circular at best, grandstanding at worst. Just as a side note, I haven't seen someone type an all caps laugh since 2014, so that was cute.
[/B]
Well, given the fact that there is not a widely accepted criterion for what qualifies as a mass shooting, you have yet to provide a better metric. It seems reasonable t the use the CRO's and FBI's definition. Not to mention, this definition is the most frequent in studies of this sort.
Originally posted by Selenial
Debatable, given the fact the United States takes 9 out of the top 15 spots. I'll admit I misspoke slightly, I was equating the United States with representing countries that had laxer gun laws. I suppose your incorrect intervention here is due to you replacing Freshest (for some reason) in responding to me, but allow me to clarify.
[/B]
It is not debatable. If you look at the chart I posted, averages are given for the United States and European Union. In regards to the murder rate, the US has a 0.0879 murder rate per million. Europe loses with a 0.0881 murder rate per million. If we compare casualties, the difference is more marked. Europe has a casualty rate per million of 0.268 whereas the US has a casualty rate of 0.088.
Originally posted by Selenial
Which was Freshest claiming that the places with the laxer gun laws have the most mass shootings. I attempted to show that your original methodology was flawed, which I stand by, but did not have the data to actually calculate every country's mass shootings. For the record, I believe that when you break the US down into constituent states, it would start dominating the list for frequencies as well.I merely looked at mortality because it was the data I have available, so let's look at the list you posted and see whether The US places with stricter gun legislation have worse mass shootings, looking at the Top 15 again.
Washington D.C.
Norway
Connecticut
Serbia
France
Macedonia
Oregan
Colorado
South Carolina
Washington
Albania
Nevada
Slovakia
Minnesota
WisconsinSuddenly 11 out of 15 of countries with the worst mortality rates are states with permissive gun regulation. Furthermore, Slovakia has a troubling problem with illegal gun smuggling which the government has trouble cracking down on due to their economy, which could explain why they're higher, further investigation would be required however.
Essentially, the vast majority of countries on your list have liberal gun laws, and those that don't like Norway (potentially France) would disappear if the time period was expanded to be apolitical. That's the important part of this discussion.
[/B]
Freshest's claim arises from the graph which I posted which shows that the vast majority of mass-shootings transpire in gun-free zones. This further corroborates the idea that even though mass-shootings happen in states with more lax gun laws, it is usually within the areas with tighter regulations. I have no clue why we should use the top 15 rather than the total average. It seems fairer to compare the population as a whole, rather than just the fringe. Additionally, assault weapons bans are negatively correlated with mass-shootings. To quote the abstract of another study conducted by Mark Gius,
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of federal and state assault weapons bans on public mass shootings. Using a Poisson effect model and data for the period 1982 to 2011, it was found that both state and federal assault weapons bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities but that only the federal assault weapons ban had a negative effect on mass shooting injuries. This study is one of the first studies that looks solely at the effects of assault weapons bans on public mass shootings.
When the Rand Corporation, did a review of the research they found "no qualifying studies showing that any of the 13 policies we investigated decreased mass shootings." They looked at background checks, assault rifle bans, age requirements, etc. Also, if you are to look at murders, it only seems fair for me to look at casualties. Casualties are killings+injuries. Where the US and Europe primarily occupy an equal share.
Originally posted by Selenial
Oh and as a side note, yes, using one country's law enforcement definition for a mass shooting when comparing several different countries is biased, especially when there's such conflicting opinions. You're attempting to lend unwavering credulity to the FBI as being more knowledgeable than us, and giving better definitions, when the United States Congress can't even subscribe to it, having enacted into law a different definition, and using another definition still for some of their investigations.
Provide a better methodology and the Congressional Research Office has used this definition on numerous occasions.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Staggering... It's cute that you think Norway is the only area which has outlier mass-shootings. Between the same time horizon, 2009-2015 Washington DC has had only one mass-shooting. Now, I tried to find your claim about the extended time-frame as you never shared a source. But, unfortunately, I could not. Regardless, Connecticut, like Norway, has only had two mass-shootings. So, I would be curious to see your source.
Depending on the definition, yes, Connecticut has only had two. If you use the Congressionally approved definition, or include crime related shootings however, you would see a different story. It's all in the definition, sweetheart. My point was exactly that though, that even with your inclusion of outliers, historical expansion (which helps reduce outliers) brings several US states closer in line with even Norway.
Well, given the fact that there is not a widely accepted criterion for what qualifies as a mass shooting, you have yet to provide a better metric. It seems reasonable t the use the CRO's and FBI's definition. Not to mention, this definition is the most frequent in studies of this sort.
Provide a better methodology and the Congressional Research Office has used this definition on numerous occasions.
No genuine academic would actually attempt to provide a 'better' metric, but analyse the data when using several different definitions of Mass shootings. As I'm not currently writing a report, I can't be assed, so...
For the record though, the fact the Congressional Research Office has used multiple other definitions at times shows they don't think the entire picture can be given by just using this one.
It is not debatable. If you look at the chart I posted, averages are given for the United States and European Union. In regards to the murder rate, the US has a 0.0879 murder rate per million. Europe loses with a 0.0881 murder rate per million. If we compare casualties, the difference is more marked. Europe has a casualty rate per million of 0.268 whereas the US has a casualty rate of 0.088.
Freshest's claim arises from the graph which I posted which shows that the vast majority of mass-shootings transpire in gun-free zones. This further corroborates the idea that even though mass-shootings happen in states with more lax gun laws, it is usually within the areas with tighter regulations. I have no clue why we should use the top 15 rather than the total average. It seems fairer to compare the population as a whole, rather than just the fringe.
Link me? Because if you're using the graph in which supposedly only '3.8%' of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, I'd have to advise Freshest (and perhaps you) to look closer at your source material. That graph is in relation to specific places in countries which do not allow guns, not nations with stricter gun legislation. As Freshest was responding to distinctions between national law, I'd have to say either he has a criminal misunderstanding of his source material, or you have completely misunderstood what he was replying to.
If you have that list more expansive, and broken down into places with liberal regulation as well, then do post it. I could only be bothered to do the top 15, but I'm happy to keep going, I'm fully aware the correlation will continue. As it stands, the only data you've posted compares areas within states with liberal gun ownership laws, not comparing between states. This comparison is entirely irrelevant, I would agree that 'gun-free' zones do absolutely nothing to stop premeditated mass shootings when within gun owning states. Impulsive murders, maybe, but we're not discussing those.
Additionally, assault weapons bans are negatively correlated with mass-shootings. To quote the abstract of another study conducted by Mark Gius.When the Rand Corporation, did a review of the research they found "no qualifying studies showing that any of the 13 policies we investigated decreased mass shootings." They looked at background checks, assault rifle bans, age requirements, etc. Also, if you are to look at murders, it only seems fair for me to look at casualties. Casualties are killings+injuries. Where the US and Europe primarily occupy an equal share.
An interesting study, I'm sure. If anything though, it only shows the incompetence of the American political system, and shows that the watered down legislation that has been passed was indeed useless. Not massively surprising. Australia's ban seems to have gone down a treat, according to several different academics. The conclusion of one study notes:
Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.
The studies you look at are again centred around the United States, not the world, and since we're comparing countries here we shouldn't just focus on the US's cataclysmic failures, but the successes of other countries.
I can understand somewhat if you think banning weapons like this is a second amendment issue, and that you're willing to risk an increase in mass shootings to hold onto your rights, but I don't understand the relentless desire to prove the unprovable, namely that gun legislation does not breed a reduction in mass shootings...
Oh, and for the record, I meant to put this in my last post but forgot. You said:
I was comparing frequency, not mortality,
Which was a lie, since your original post said:
even if this stat was accurate, the US is not number one in mass shooting frequency nor mass shooting mortality.
You only backed up the former, but you clearly claimed both.
Originally posted by SelenialWashington D.C.
Norway
Connecticut
Serbia
France
Macedonia
Oregan
Colorado
South Carolina
Washington
Albania
Nevada
Slovakia
Minnesota
WisconsinSuddenly 11 out of 15 of countries with the worst mortality rates are states with permissive gun regulation.
Serbia isn't a state, Sel...
Originally posted by MythLord
Serbia isn't a state, Sel...
Too long studying politics, I thought everyone realised 'state' and 'nation' are practically interchangeable.
The definition of 'state' is simply: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
Spoiler:
If you're looking for a fun game, one of the others on that list isn't a US state either, try have a guess 🙂
Originally posted by Selenial
Depending on the definition, yes, Connecticut has only had two. If you use the Congressionally approved definition, or include crime related shootings however, you would see a different story. It's all in the definition, sweetheart. My point was exactly that though, that even with your inclusion of outliers, historical expansion (which helps reduce outliers) brings several US states closer in line with even Norway.
The Congressionally approved definition is the one which I am using. When defining a mass-shooting, the Congressional Research Service Office said,"a multiple homicide incidents in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity." Also, the inclusion of crime-related shootings is rarely used in scholarly discussion and is not what prompts outrage among the populous.
Originally posted by Selenial
No genuine academic would actually attempt to provide a 'better' metric, but analyse the data when using several different definitions of Mass shootings.
You must think that James Alan Fox, Grant Duwe, Tom Kovandzic, and Carl Moody, Bloomberg's Everytown, Gary Kates, Gary Mauser, Gary Kleck, William J. Krouse, Daniel J. Richardson, Louis Klaravas, Lisa Hepburn, David Hemenway, and so many others are not "genuine academics" considering each of these researchers have used a single definition when looking into mass-shootings. (The amount of peer-reviewed papers on criminology produced by these researchers exceeds over 5,000).
Originally posted by Selenial
For the record though, the fact the Congressional Research Office has used multiple other definitions at times shows they don't think the entire picture can be given by just using this one.
Sel, you always make these random claims which aren't true and aren't sourced. In the most significant study ever conducted by mass-shootings by the CRO, they used one definition(this is the one I am using). The vast majority of academics and scholars adhere to the idea that a mass-shooting requires the deaths of four or more participants.
Originally posted by Selenial
The United States and European Union are incomparable for a plethora of reasons. There are hugely different gun laws across continental Europe, even among the European Union. Illegal importation of guns from countries which are more lenient on guns also adds to the availability of them, and the ability to commit mass murder that results from them. That isn't an argument against gun regulation, it's an argument about tighter customs control...
1. I mentioned Europe to illustrate that the US is not the only country which experiences numerous mass-shootings and therefore it is not a problem unique to the United States. You continued the European comparison despite its supposed "incomparable" nature. You can't shift the goal posts when the outcome doesn't favor your case.
2. There are massive amounts of gun smuggling here and way more guns accessible to the populous. So, I am not sure how that is relevant.
3. Prove that the mass-shootings transpired due to poor customs.
Originally posted by Selenial
Link me? Because if you're using the graph in which supposedly only '3.8%' of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, I'd have to advise Freshest (and perhaps you) to look closer at your source material. That graph is in relation to specific places in countries which do not allow guns, not nations with stricter gun legislation.
Well, I can't speak for Fresh. But my mentioning of Gun-Free Zones merely corroborates the idea that gun regulation can increase mass-shooting rate.
Originally posted by Selenial
If you have that list more expansive, and broken down into places with liberal regulation as well, then do post it. I could only be bothered to do the top 15, but I'm happy to keep going, I'm fully aware the correlation will continue. As it stands, the only data you've posted compares areas within states with liberal gun ownership laws, not comparing between states. This comparison is entirely irrelevant, I would agree that 'gun-free' zones do absolutely nothing to stop premeditated mass shootings when within gun owning states.
Oh, I would happily compare state to state. If we use the Brady score, which is by far the most accurate score when comparing gun violence, we find zero correlation with gun policy and homicides. If we compare across gun-ownership, we find zero correlation.
That's a 0.1 coefficient which is negligible. But in regards, to mass-shootings, there is also no correlation between states. A recent study conducted by Benjamin M. Blau, Devon H. Gorry, & Chip Wade found that gun laws have no effect on mass-shooting rates across the U.S. from 1982 to 2014. To quote the abstract,
Since the late 1990s, there have been increasing numbers of public shootings carried out with firearms in the United States. These tragedies continually renew the regulatory debate concerning public safety while considering civil liberties. Using a unique data set, we investigate whether laws correspond to whether an event occurs and the effects of event-specific characteristics on public shooting outcomes. In particular, we analyse how state-specific gun laws, the types of firearms, the shooting venues and the mental health of the gunman impact the outcomes of public shootings. Results show that most gun laws are unrelated to whether an event occurs. In addition, common state and federal gun laws that outlaw assault weapons are unrelated to the likelihood of an assault weapon being used during a public shooting event.
Originally posted by Selenial
An interesting study, I'm sure. If anything though, it only shows the incompetence of the American political system, and shows that the watered down legislation that has been passed was indeed useless.
Selenial, what gun policy are you proposing that was not addressed in RAND's report. They looked at background checks, assault rifle bans, waiting periods, bump stock bans, licensing, Large-Capacity Magazines bans, and many others. As mentioned, assault rifle bans have a positive correlation with increased mass-shootings. Also, the fact that vast majority of mass-shootings transpire in gun-free zones is a testament to the idea that gun control doesn't help, but hurt in some cases.
Originally posted by Selenial
Not massively surprising. Australia's ban seems to have gone down a treat, according to several different academics. The conclusion of one study notes:
The study in question was looking at firearm homicides, not overall homicide rates. There have been 15 studies conducted each not finding an effect. The International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences did a meta-analysis on each of the studies regarding Australia's gun policy and gleaned this result.
The International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences did a meta-analysis on each of the studies regarding Australia's gun policy and gleaned this result.
In regards to mass-shootings, the study does find a causative relationship and merely states,
Removing large numbers of rapid firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides, and firearm suicides.
However, there was a recent study published in 2018 which critiqued the Chapman et al. study. Kleck found that using their data it was questionable whether or not the ban even reduced mass-shootings.
In 1996 Australia implemented arguably the most ambitious gun control effort ever attempted, banning all semi auto rifles and shotguns and all pump-action rifles and shotguns, and buying the banned guns already in circulation. Chapman, Alpers, and Jones (2016) produced what is arguably the most extensive evaluation, concluding that the measure was a success. In fact, their own data indicated that the effort failed to reduce homicides, suicides, or unintentional firearms deaths. It is even questionable whether the effort reduced mass shootings, the problem that had triggered the gun control effort in the first place.
Since Australia is entirely irrelevant, provide a study or meta-analysis which supports your view and explain the invalidity of the RAND research which also assessed some international data.
Originally posted by Selenial
The studies you look at are again centred around the United States, not the world, and since we're comparing countries here we shouldn't just focus on the US's cataclysmic failures, but the successes of other countries.
Well, considering the unique nature of gun-culture in the U.S. I find national studies to be the most relevant. I also find it interesting that Europe which is more regulated then the U.S. has higher mass-shooting murder rates and casualty rates.
Originally posted by Selenial
I can understand somewhat if you think banning weapons like this is a second amendment issue, and that you're willing to risk an increase in mass shootings to hold onto your rights, but I don't understand the relentless desire to prove the unprovable, namely that gun legislation does not breed a reduction in mass shootings...
Well, mass-shootings make up less than 1% of the homicide rate, so I don't forge my gun policy around them. We can talk about homicides if you would like. But, its funny that you have only cited one study, which is not in line with the empirical consensus, nor has any direct appliance to the U.S.
Originally posted by Selenial
Oh, and for the record, I meant to put this in my last post but forgot. You said:Which was a lie, since your original post said:
Well, my claim was valid in regards to both mean and median, but the point on frequency was the central thesis of my argument. But, I guess that is fair enough. Also, I realized that you miscounted countries. It is only 9 out of 15, not 11.
Yo I’m on my phone so can’t reply until the morning (GMT), but I have to quickly ask something. How come you switched to Gun ownership vs Homicides after talking about the Brady score? The context of our discussion was still mass shootings. I originally thought it was you attempting to move the goal posts, but in your second post you languish over me mentioning homicides and insist you weren’t discussing them, so I have to assume it’s a mistake? mmm
“An interesting study, I'm sure. If anything though, it only shows the incompetence of the American political system”
Kek cause the American political system is the one jailing people for jokes and building a police hub to go after people for mean things said on the internet while being completely incompetent at handling grooming gangs where grown men repeatedly rape young girls.