Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2018, 03:12 AM
 
Location: Florida
2,309 posts, read 894,916 times
Reputation: 659

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Norway, Finland and Switzerland have the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe.

Finland and Norway even have more guns than Switzerland, and hunting is common in such countries, however these countries have few annual gun deaths.

Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia

The problem with John Lott and others who research for him is that the methodology which is basically nonsense. They exclude a lot of US Gun massacres whilst using selective years and even terrorist attacks to skew numbers in order to support a pro-gun agenda and have been criticised for it in the past.
What US gun massacres did Lott excluded?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2018, 03:18 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,976 posts, read 13,226,495 times
Reputation: 19202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post
What US gun massacres did Lott excluded?
These ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkProgress

Lott often claims that there is no difference between the frequency of public shootings in Europe and the United States. This is unabashedly false — but he continues to spread the falsehood anyway.

In February, he made the claim before the Tennessee Senate. “Most people may not realize this, but the rate of mass public shootings in Europe is actually fairly similar to the rate in the United States,” he said. “There is no statistically significant difference there, either in terms of the rate or fatalities.”

A couple of months earlier, he said something similar to the Washington Post, which quickly highlighted that his analysis was quite different from that of other experts in the field. As the Post noted, while Lott said the per capita rates of mass shootings in Europe and the United States were approximately the same, another researcher found the U.S. rate to be five times higher. The Post explained that the gulf between the results was due to Lott and the other researcher using different definitions.

Lott’s carefully crafted criteria to include an incident as a mass shooting is highly suspect. Lott goes to great lengths to exclude mass shootings that are the result of burglaries and gang violence, but he includes terrorist attacks. This choice means that while the Texas biker gang gunfight last summer is excluded in his statistics, the November Paris attacks, which accounted for more than one-third of Europe’s mass shooting fatalities, are included.

However, when scholars study these mass shootings, they frequently exclude terrorist attacks from the analysis, for much the same reason Lott excludes burglaries and gang violence: the motivations are different.

The GOP's favorite gun 'academic' is a fraud – ThinkProgress


FACT CHECK: Does the United States Have a Lower Death Rate From Mass Shootings Than European Countries?

Last edited by Brave New World; 09-06-2018 at 04:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 03:34 AM
 
Location: Florida
2,309 posts, read 894,916 times
Reputation: 659
First place, a site called "think progress" doesn't lend itself to being unbiased. Second, keep in mind that not too long ago it was discovered that the reported number of school shootings were highly inflated and thus we are already dealing with mixed numbers. And finally, the example the article gave wasn't really a strong one as the study was on mass shootings rather than shootouts. BTW, I think this video provides a good analysis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHk38Fi25I&t=680s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 04:58 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,976 posts, read 13,226,495 times
Reputation: 19202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post

First place, a site called "think progress" doesn't lend itself to being unbiased. Second, keep in mind that not too long ago it was discovered that the reported number of school shootings were highly inflated and thus we are already dealing with mixed numbers. And finally, the example the article gave wasn't really a strong one as the study was on mass shootings rather than shootouts. BTW, I think this video provides a good analysis.
If anyone is biased it is the pro-gun lobby and people like John Lott.

Using certain convenient years relating to one off attacks in countries with relatively small populations such as Norway which does not mean that the US has less gun deaths year in year out.

The same is true of trying to capitalise on to use terrorist attacks such as Bataclan attack in Paris or other such tragedies, whilst not counting US shootings relating to crime.

As I have already pointed out, Norway, Finland and Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership and low levels of shootings, and other than a few years which Lott and other pro-gun advocates like to continually refer to, such countries have low levels of shootings, indeed the police in Norway are generally unarmed.

I could cite my own country the UK, which introduced stricter gun controls in 1997 and since this time over 20 years ago there has only been one mass shooting, and that was largely a case where people were murdered by someone they knew and their bodies only later discovered.

Gun massacres are not that common in Europe, and when I switch on the news and there is coverage of a gun massacre it's generally in the US.

Of course the US and the gun lobby can bury it's head in the sand and try to use skewed figures but that doesn't really solve the problem.

By the end of June 2018 there had been 154 mass shootings in the US.

There have been 154 mass shootings in the US so far in 2018 — here's the full list - Business Insider

Last edited by Brave New World; 09-06-2018 at 05:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 01:35 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,230,969 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post
First off, please show evidence that 74% of the guns used in crimes came from outside the state. Secondly, even if this is the case, why aren't the surrounding states suffering from the same or worse crime rate?
Here is where that 74% comes from:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-iron-pipeline

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/10...-out-of-state/

The surrounding states have basically the same violent crime rate as New York.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
9,019 posts, read 14,227,780 times
Reputation: 11030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan View Post
So another myth bites the dust.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/30/americ...ass-shootings/

"Lankford’s (the man who claimed the US lead the world) study reported that over the 47 years there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. Lankford hasn’t released his list of shootings or even the number of cases by country or year. We and others, both in academia and the media, have asked Lankford for his list, only to be declined. He has also declined to provide lists of the news sources and languages he used to compile his list of cases.

These omissions are important because Lankford’s entire conclusion would fall apart if he undercounted foreign cases due to lack of news coverage and language barriers.

Lankford cites a 2012 New York Police Department report which he claims is “nearly comprehensive in its coverage of recent decades.” He also says he supplemented the data and followed “the same data collection methodology employed by the NYPD.” But the NYPD report warns that its own researchers “limited [their] Internet searches to English-language sites, creating a strong sampling bias against international incidents,” and thus under-count foreign mass shootings."

Also,

"Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States."

So, the US ranks 56th out of 86. Even in the civilized world the US not first.
Break it down annually, not over the last 50 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,446 posts, read 4,024,284 times
Reputation: 4490
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
Do you see where the scumbags target? Gun free zones mainly schools and churches... Take as many innocent people as quickly as possible to either be dealt with by police or do themselves in like cowards to avoid jail/punishment.

Strange how all of the 3 gun events and shooting ranges I attend, no mass shootings...They most certainly do deter mass shooters when the odds are greatly stacked against them...
99% of schools in America never have a mass shooting either. 99% of gun free zones never have a mass shooting either, and when I say 99% I mean like 99.99% of them. Using personal experience doesn’t mean anything. The argument of gun free zones means nothing because mass shooters act on emotion or terroristthreat hence even when targeting soft targets, they go after things that are/were personal to them. From Las Vegas Casino/Hotel to their Florida School to their San Bernardino Workplace. It’s not like they look for the softest target within a 100 miles, most mass shooters go to places that are connected to them hence many of their victims might know the shooter, even if they aren’t physically connected they still attack the places they personally hate like South Carolina Black Church, Dallas BLM Parade near/with Cops, Orlando Gat Nightclub
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 03:44 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,230,969 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
In science we test theories...
My theory is, remove incentive and allow people their right to self defense however they see fit giving them a fighting chance (dems used their theory of a fighting chance being reduced magazine capacity for the shooters will fumble the reload Maryland news paper proved that to be false).
Dumb idea in the case of mass spree shooters. For several reasons.

1.) In a public place you don't know who is and isn't armed. If a spree shooter starts up, by the time you draw you may not be able to tell who the real shooter is and who is just another armed individual interested in self defense. You don't have the time to ask each person with a gun if they are the shooter. You thus run the risk of either being killed by other people carrying a gun or killing an innocent person by mistake.

2.) Cops arriving at the scene of a mass shooting will not be able to tell criminal from "legal gun owners". Essentially an armed "legal gun owner" runs a good chance of being shot by police by mistake. If the whole point of carrying a gun around is self defense, this makes carrying around a gun counter-intuitive.

This was the exact problem police encountered in the Dallas shooting. There were random people walking around with AR-15's at the time the massacre started. Essentially the police arrested every person they found with a gun since they couldn't ID who the shooter was. Thus delaying the time in which the police could track down the real shooter.

Cops avoid this issue by wearing uniforms and being able to communicate via radio. Some random armed civilians are not going to be doing.

Stories involving "legal gun owners" stopping mass shooters always seem to feature one important component. The "hero" is the only armed individual in the vicinity. The Texas shooter that was stopped by a local man with a gun, was the only person around to confront the shooter. Thus no confusion occurred. These conditions cannot be anticipated in every mass shooting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
The moment active shooters are put down starting their scumbag BS, it will resonate we will not tolerate your BS anymore.
Me, I want those scumbags to fear attempting a heinous attack. I want them to be the ones calling for gun control. Not the feeble who put faith in some law that will make millions into felons based on arbitrary features or rights be open to subjective emotional review.
Somebody who anticipates death isn't going to be afraid of death. Most spree shooters go into mass shooting anticipating they are going to die. Hence they often end their killing spree by killing themselves. You are coming into this as if these people are in a normal state of mind and would understand rationality. They don't or can't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 10:26 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,471,185 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
Dumb idea in the case of mass spree shooters. For several reasons.

1.) In a public place you don't know who is and isn't armed. If a spree shooter starts up, by the time you draw you may not be able to tell who the real shooter is and who is just another armed individual interested in self defense. You don't have the time to ask each person with a gun if they are the shooter. You thus run the risk of either being killed by other people carrying a gun or killing an innocent person by mistake.

2.) Cops arriving at the scene of a mass shooting will not be able to tell criminal from "legal gun owners". Essentially an armed "legal gun owner" runs a good chance of being shot by police by mistake. If the whole point of carrying a gun around is self defense, this makes carrying around a gun counter-intuitive.

This was the exact problem police encountered in the Dallas shooting. There were random people walking around with AR-15's at the time the massacre started. Essentially the police arrested every person they found with a gun since they couldn't ID who the shooter was. Thus delaying the time in which the police could track down the real shooter.

Cops avoid this issue by wearing uniforms and being able to communicate via radio. Some random armed civilians are not going to be doing.

Stories involving "legal gun owners" stopping mass shooters always seem to feature one important component. The "hero" is the only armed individual in the vicinity. The Texas shooter that was stopped by a local man with a gun, was the only person around to confront the shooter. Thus no confusion occurred. These conditions cannot be anticipated in every mass shooting.




Somebody who anticipates death isn't going to be afraid of death. Most spree shooters go into mass shooting anticipating they are going to die. Hence they often end their killing spree by killing themselves. You are coming into this as if these people are in a normal state of mind and would understand rationality. They don't or can't.
Really? Strange... I recall 2 in Oklahoma stopping an active shooter.
So much for that theory that only police communicate...

Not you're wrong. I'm coming into this giving people a fighting chance against these scumbags and dropping them the moment they start rather than waiting for police to arrive...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 04:16 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,230,969 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
Really? Strange... I recall 2 in Oklahoma stopping an active shooter.
So much for that theory that only police communicate...

Not you're wrong. I'm coming into this giving people a fighting chance against these scumbags and dropping them the moment they start rather than waiting for police to arrive...
Read up on that story. The shooter open fired in a diner then fled the scene on foot. He was pursued by two men who were armed but only one man fired at shots at him according to the police report. Also, the armed civilians who confronted the man only did so after he was done shooting up the diner. So damage was already done. Ideally the crazy man wouldn't be able to get a gun in the first place and we would have no shooting needing to be stopped.

The only idiotic solutions offered by gun fanatics are reactive in nature. Not proactive, like stopping it before it can even occur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top