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.
"Mass shootings per capita" is a really dumb comparison. Mass shootings are relatively infrequent events, so you need to look at the frequency with which they occur, not how many people on average got killed in them. Furthermore, the really telling statistic is the overall homicide and gun violence rate...tell me that USA is lower there? I'd be fascinated to know the answer to that (nint: I already know).
Of course the US has the highest "gun" homicide rate, it has the most guns. You're focusing on the wrong part. Instead of putting emphasis on the "gun" in the term gun homicide, you should be putting emphasis on the homicide. Does the US have the highest homicide rate?
Maybe next you can tell us why coastal states have more shark attacks than inland states, or why the traffic fatality rate skyrocketed between the years of 1850 and 1950.....
Those that are unwilling to (1) institutionalize the violently mentally ill, and (2) lock up convicted violent felons for long prison sentences without parole.
Do England, France and Germany do a better job of taking care of mentally Ill, do they have a history of less mental illness per capita?
What you're really saying here is that mass shootings are such rare events that there is an inverse effect of the 'law of large numbers' in operation. You're literally more likely to die from being struck by lightning than from a mass shooting. Where are the threads on lightning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I guess that is one way to ignore how common mass shootings have become in this country. Should we start playing the game which state will the next mass shooting happen in next? It is a fun game and sure to have a winner within a month or two, and several people can win each year.
Why bother to quote someone's post if you're not going to address what they said? Again, the mass shootings are so rare that just one incident skewed the numbers to put a purportedly idyllic Norway 'ahead' (so to speak) of the US.
I never suggested to ignore them (typical liberal, stuffing words into others' mouths), but just that we don't need this level of naval gazing. If we're going to get this level of attention, including pronouncements from the POTUS, why not make it about a topic that results in at least as many deaths as lightning strikes?
So Obama is wrong. However, this doesn't go to say that gun homicides in the US aren't an issue that need to be addressed.
Mass shootings per capita, when dealing with not-so-populated countries like the Scandinavian ones is still substantially less than shootings per year. The Scandinavian peninsula has less people in it than the New York metropolitan area. Switzerland has about 8 million. All the countries you listed have a smaller population combined that New York has.
If they have 3 of pretty much anything happen, they've realistically gone over that events 'per capita' of the US.
Finland has 2 a year, the US has 133. Adding in 'per capita' is not a helpful point. It's an attempt to gloss over the fact that the US has a problem. Don't do that unless you don't want to fix it, and I should hope that you do.
Oh, this is good to know. I guess mass shootings aren't a problem at all in this country. No reason to do anything at all (not that we were going to anyway)!
I don't think many political scientists would agree how the data might be used in this article. Per capita mass shooting deaths per year is a better indicator than adding up the victims over 14 years. In addition, rate of incidents is also important. The US rate is astounding even when you control for populations.
Also the two countries with the highest rates outside the US, Finland and Switzerland have the highest rates of gun ownership. Both those countries are still considerably stricter than the US. The whole Swiss thing is a myth. Walk around Geneva and you'll never see a gun. I'd be shocked to see one.
Norway is definite outlier. One event maybe all time. Very low gun ownership rates. The Norwegian police still are not armed on patrols or in general, for that matter. The Norwegians refused to cave in to the radical right.
Furthermore, this doesn't evaluate the total number of gun deaths. The US is astounding in this regards. This study should not necessarily be taken as a good benchmark to base gun policy on, as the majority of homicides committed with a firearm in the US are single or double homicides.
Why bother to quote someone's post if you're not going to address what they said? Again, the mass shootings are so rare that just one incident skewed the numbers to put a purportedly idyllic Norway 'ahead' (so to speak) of the US.
I never suggested to ignore them (typical liberal, stuffing words into others' mouths), but just that we don't need this level of naval gazing. If we're going to get this level of attention, including pronouncements from the POTUS, why not make it about a topic that results in at least as many deaths as lightning strikes?
The discussion isn't about how rare mass murders are, it's about why the US is around 10 times the rate of other civilized countries. All these mass murders certainly have an impact on our society, that is the case in places like Sandy Hook, Columbine and South Carolina.
I don't think we can do anything about lightning strikes or shark attacks, that's nature but as usually we choose to do nothing when it comes to violence in our country.
One could argue that the 2000 killed in 9/11 were rare compared with 30,000 firearm deaths per year, but we most certainly took action when it comes to guns it's like ground hogs day.
The discussion isn't about how rare mass murders are, it's about why the US is around 10 times the rate of other civilized countries. All these mass murders certainly have an impact on our society, that is the case in places like Sandy Hook, Columbine and South Carolina.
I don't think we can do anything about lightning strikes or shark attacks, that's nature but as usually we choose to do nothing when it comes to violence in our country.
One could argue that the 2000 killed in 9/11 were rare compared with 30,000 firearm deaths per year, but we most certainly took action when it comes to guns it's like ground hogs day.
I've pointed out before that if an ISIS terrorist had murdered the nine people in South Carolina, there would have been calls for military strikes on them. We'd be using any means necessary to fight back at ISIS.
But since the shooter was a white American racist, we can't do anything. The attitude is "Oh well, what can you do?"
Why bother to quote someone's post if you're not going to address what they said? Again, the mass shootings are so rare that just one incident skewed the numbers to put a purportedly idyllic Norway 'ahead' (so to speak) of the US.
I never suggested to ignore them (typical liberal, stuffing words into others' mouths), but just that we don't need this level of naval gazing. If we're going to get this level of attention, including pronouncements from the POTUS, why not make it about a topic that results in at least as many deaths as lightning strikes?
Based on the link, if there had been less than ten mass shootings in the US over the past 15 years, I would completely agree with you, but 133, that is almost a monthly occurrence, that is a real problem.
So pick which state the next mass shooting will happen in within the next month or two.
So Obama is wrong. However, this doesn't go to say that gun homicides in the US aren't an issue that need to be addressed.
Over half are suicides. We can stop this by banning all gun ownership and allow the inmates to rule the asylum. The inmates already are... they are known as Congress.
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.
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.
