Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 54 of 54

Thread: Shooting in Washington Naval Yard

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I call bullshit. Please graph for me or link to any evidence that countries with higher ownership rates have lower homicide rates.

    This is actually guns per capita, not guns ownership, which is what I promised you, but close enough for now. I have a better graph at home that I'll get for you in a couple hours - I grabbed it as soon as this story hit, because I knew this would come up again.



    The executive summary of what I've got at home is that there's a very slight downward curve (not nearly as sharp as what's above) when comparing ownership rates vs. homicides across developed countries. The correlation coefficient was something like -0.011, which implies that there's probably no correlation and the slope of the line is likely to be mere coincidence, but if you insist on drawing conclusions from it, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that raising ownership rates lowers crime rates. The line for just US states has the same slope and a better correlation coefficient, but I still believe that raising gun ownership rates does not decrease homicide rates. It's still useful for showing that the reverse assertion is false, though.

    Crime rates are falling across the whole developed world as far as I know.
    From what I can see, it's a lot less consistent in Europe than it is in the US. The data I had showed rises in the UK (as a whole, England and Wales fell, but the rest rose) and France and a few others in 2011 (extra side note: 2011 is the first time everyone starts separating England and Wales from the rest of the UK in statistics, making it harder to aggregate and compare across years.), even though other European countries were falling. If I can find 2012 data ever, we might be able to rule it as a hiccup rather than a trend.

    (edit: IIRC, 2011 was the first year that a bunch of European countries suddenly trend upwards, so it's quite fair to say it was just a hiccup for now

    This is all getting away from the point, though. You can't consistently say that other factors are responsible for the drop off in homicides, but gun ownership rates and/or GTA V are still the only possible explanation for homicides).

    Its still valid with most recent figures as far as I know. Its no more a contrived version of Europe than by saying America we don't mean Mexico. Besides is the USA a recently failed state? Is that really who you want to compare yourself with?
    Okay, so we're excluding all European countries that aren't economically well developed, and the ones that share a border with them. Since a large amount of our violence occurs in states bordering Mexico that seems a bit unfair, but okay, let's roll with it. I was going to do a bit of fancy math here, but in confirming my figures this turned out to be easier:

    The Home Office figures published today show that England and Wales are in the middle of the European murder league at 13.5 deaths per million population. Finland tops the table at 23.4, followed by Scotland at 21.4, and Ireland on 20 per million. Northern Ireland now has a murder rate well below Scotland at 15.2. Austria has the lowest murder rate in Europe at 6.1 per million.
    This is 2011, during which the US had 47 Source.

    23.4 * 4 = 93.6, which is about double. So "double" would be much more accurate than "4 times".

    But then, it probably makes me a hypocrite for calling you out on hyperbole and it's not strongly relevant anyways, so I'll let this matter drop.
    Last edited by Wraith; 09-20-2013 at 01:01 AM.

  2. #32
    Using gun ownership rates instead of guns per capita, EU Countries:


    Let's see what happens when I toss in North America:


    Can you guess which one's Mexico?

    It's harder to tell on this one, but that is still a negative slope on that line. Anyways, it's wrong to draw any positive conclusions from these graphs, as the correlation coefficient is too small to believe that the slope of those lines is more than coincidence (if I do this exercise again in the future, it would not be surprising if the slope of the line turned out positive), but it should be enough to convince you that gun ownership doesn't positively correlate with homicide rate.

    I like the household gun ownership % better than the guns per capita because it gives a better picture of how widespread access to guns are. 1 gun per capita could mean everyone has a gun, or one guy has a shit-ton of guns. I think this problem is what causes the slopes in the graphs I posted before to look so steep, and it's why I don't really give them much weight.

    Full disclosure: EU countries I don't have gun ownership data for, and thus aren't included: Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. This list includes the highly murderous European countries, so I don't think I'm unfairly skewing the data by excluding them. (I've got Lithuania's guns per capita, so whatever their household gun ownership rate is, it's no larger than 0.7%)

    I have full data for ~60 countries not plotted here, I just haven't entered the homicide data for them yet. If you'd like, and are willing to give me until tomorrow, I can get those entered in and see what the plot looks like. I don't currently believe it's necessary, though.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Source?

    The number 12 also seems a suspicious choice, since law enforcement's definition is 4+, and if you're going to pick an arbitrary higher number, most people would naturally go towards ten.

    The closest I could find says that the number of mass killings actually dropped in the 2000s, after an upward trend from the 60s to the 90s.
    The graph was on tv, probably an MSNBC news show (but didn't have my glasses to read the fine print 'source' ) The definition of 'mass' and reason for using the number 12 was given, maybe it was for 'mass shootings'. Maybe there's a video I can find, but here's a recent article that also links other sources, charts and graphs.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...hooting/69508/


    The number of homicide victims per year is also the lowest in absolute numbers since 1969. Unfortunately I can't give when the last time the per capita homicide victim rate was lower than now, because my data only goes back to the 60s. I did find a claim that the year would be 1928, though, which would mean that you're less likely to be murdered now than at any time in the past 85 years. And the murder rate (and indeed, all violent crime rates) continue to drop year after year.
    I wasn't talking about the homicide rate, or the violent crime rate, though. I specified the mental health variable, and frequency of mass shootings over the course of time. The two together. (1) Forensic Criminology has studied the psychiatric profile since, well, since Al Capone or Bonnie and Clyde. Naming a cause, or answering the Why?, has always found its way to Mental Health explanations, based on the comforting assumption that they must be crazy/insane/sick to do such a horrible thing. (2) Frequency of mass murder in the US (using the same definitions) increasing since 2000. That's not adjusted for medical advancements in trauma that change the killed vs injured numbers. When compared with modern history, these events are happening more often and closer together, in the United States.


    Something MUST be done, right?
    Yes, absolutely! It's a public health issue, with the same validity and "value" as finding the cause/cure for rare diseases that 'only' kill a few thousand people/year....or spending billion$ in R & D and pharmaceuticals to save and/or extend life. It's a public safety issue, which requires modifications and upgrades for every new era.

  4. #34
    Send me your excel file when you've finished entering your data, please.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I wasn't talking about the homicide rate, or the violent crime rate, though. I specified the mental health variable, and frequency of mass shootings over the course of time. The two together. (1) Forensic Criminology has studied the psychiatric profile since, well, since Al Capone or Bonnie and Clyde. Naming a cause, or answering the Why?, has always found its way to Mental Health explanations, based on the comforting assumption that they must be crazy/insane/sick to do such a horrible thing. (2) Frequency of mass murder in the US (using the same definitions) increasing since 2000. That's not adjusted for medical advancements in trauma that change the killed vs injured numbers. When compared with modern history, these events are happening more often and closer together, in the United States.
    51 people die to lightning strikes each year.

    Using your definition, 8.7 people die to mass shootings each year since 2000. (113 total in events with 12+ deaths).

    Isn't it more worth our time to worry about lightning strikes?

  6. #36
    After reading the other posts and replies, the confluence seems to default to guns: gun control, gun safety, the US 2nd Amendment, etc. Even when "gun issues" are connected to mental health issues, the debate/discussion continues to be hijacked by "Guns"...while ignoring the mental health/public health aspect.

    The US congress is too polarized to study and examine these issues in context, and govern accordingly. The minority right-wing fringe is quite disturbing. They don't want gun safety regulations OR comprehensive healthcare...but they've managed to hijack and paralyze The Peoples' Government.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    Send me your excel file when you've finished entering your data, please.
    I just read (or hear) other people's data. Did you know that we can buy "bullet proof" backpacks, lunch boxes, or white boards....on Amazon or e-Bay.....for Kindergarteners?

    *But if that five year old is setting fires or torturing animals, and exhibiting early signs/symptoms of pathology....it's practically impossible to find that child appropriate and affordable care.
    Last edited by GGT; 09-20-2013 at 06:01 AM.

  8. #38

  9. #39
    Lightning strikes, man. Way more of a threat.

  10. #40
    Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

  11. #41
    You're not following. Lightning kills people.

    If we change the cut-off to 15+ people for a mass-murder, we had 2 per decade in the 80s & 90s, and only 1.5 per decade since. We're safer!

    Something something arbitrary constraints on sparse data.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    51 people die to lightning strikes each year.

    Using your definition, 8.7 people die to mass shootings each year since 2000. (113 total in events with 12+ deaths).

    Isn't it more worth our time to worry about lightning strikes?
    Terrorism?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  13. #43
    I find it strange, this implication that deaths from lightning strikes and deaths from crazy-gunman-strikes are equivalent. I suspect that they have very different effects on society and on people's behaviour.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I find it strange, this implication that deaths from lightning strikes and deaths from crazy-gunman-strikes are equivalent. I suspect that they have very different effects on society and on people's behaviour.
    They do, but my point is they probably shouldn't.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Terrorism?
    If you're asking about the comparison between terrorism kills and lightning strikes, the terrorism number since 2000 is 251 per year according to this. About 5 times the number of lightning strike deaths. The number was about 3000 with another 8900 injuries in 2001 though, and that does go a ways towards justifying concern. I think I get the point you plan on making, and I'm probably more with you on it than you expect.

  16. #46
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-homicides-map (no need for me to do it myself, after all)
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    You're not following. Lightning kills people.

    If we change the cut-off to 15+ people for a mass-murder, we had 2 per decade in the 80s & 90s, and only 1.5 per decade since. We're safer!

    Something something arbitrary constraints on sparse data.
    Oh, I'm following alright, just not agreeing with your conclusions. IF you overlap the history of medical care (technology, ambulances, EMTs, level 1 trauma centers, medical helicopters, etc.) with gun technology....there was a time when 99% of all GSWs were fatal. If an early bullet didn't kill you, the imbedded lead or secondary infection eventually would. A spray of modern bullets can miss vital organs, but you'd bleed to death without 911 or EMS. Those aren't arbitrary constraints of data, but important contexts that change outcomes. Injury vs Death.

    Yes, lightning kills a small number of people. That's why golf courses or swimming pools close during storms. Not every tornado kills people either. We've got a National Weather Alert system, and build basements and shelters...but when it happens to a school without them it's a tragic loss of life. Structure fires are less frequent or lethal (since electricity was invented and building materials have improved), but that doesn't mean we stop using smoke detectors, close the local Fire Dept. or Burn Unit. Etc.

  18. #48
    Okay, let's include injuries of any level in the figure.

    18.3 people die or are injured in some way in mass murder events as you've defined them. 51 people flat out die from lightning strikes in the US each year. A brief search couldn't get me injury numbers for lightning (I know that not everyone dies from these), but it doesn't really matter.

    Why do you think we need societal changes for the least impactful of these two things, but not the one that kills six times as many people? Shouldn't SOMETHING be done?

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Okay, let's include injuries of any level in the figure.

    18.3 people die or are injured in some way in mass murder events as you've defined them. 51 people flat out die from lightning strikes in the US each year. A brief search couldn't get me injury numbers for lightning (I know that not everyone dies from these), but it doesn't really matter.

    Why do you think we need societal changes for the least impactful of these two things, but not the one that kills six times as many people? Shouldn't SOMETHING be done?
    Are you trying to say gun violence has the same "impact" on society as lightning strikes? Or are you arguing that we don't need to do anything about mental health, because most mentally ill don't get a gun and shoot up a school/mall/movie theatre/Town Hall/religious center/military base? Or is your position that gun safety legislation is as silly mandating lightning rods on tall buildings, because it won't stop lightning?

  20. #50
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    I would say the impact might be different if the press did not go guano every time this happens.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  21. #51
    Pictures get peoples' attention in ways that print press doesn't. That includes social media/cell phones from witnesses and the public. I don't see that as 'going guano', just part of our communication age. If anything, I'd say there's a chance of being desensitized to the ugly, bloody, lethal realities of gun violence "every time" it's a News item...which is every day in the US.

    edit: Is this slideshow an example of press hysteria? Is it "different" because it happened in Africa instead of the US?

    http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/201...ROBI2_337.html
    Last edited by GGT; 09-22-2013 at 06:29 AM.

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I find it strange, this implication that deaths from lightning strikes and deaths from crazy-gunman-strikes are equivalent. I suspect that they have very different effects on society and on people's behaviour.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    They do, but my point is they probably shouldn't.
    I kinda slid over this exchange, but are you saying society should treat violence/death, caused directly by people, the same as violence/death caused by weather events? That doesn't make much sense, at least not in the context of public health and safety.

    We've spent a lot of time, effort, innovation, and money--to minimize risk and damage caused by weather events, aka "Acts of God". (At least we tried decades ago, when building infrastructure to withstand "100 year floods" or the "rare" blizzard. But that's an oops topic...)

    We've done the same for any product with human influence or "human error" that can cause injury or death -- from cars to cribs. And we've tried to do that in medicine and healthcare, regardless of cause (lifestyle or genetic), frequency, or death rate. (At least we hope things don't have to become epidemic or pandemic before we act. Another oops.)


    So, what do your posts mean? The US doesn't have a gun violence problem -- it's an illusion created by lib'ruls using false statistics, perpetuated by media histrionics? We don't have a national mental health/illness care problem -- commie pinko sssocialists cooked that up to pass Obamacare? People die every day, people kill people every day, so doing Something is worse than doing Nothing, and there's nothing in-between?

  23. #53
    I really don't want to follow all your attempts to shift topics, or engage in a catchphrase competition.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I really don't want to follow all your attempts to shift topics, or engage in a catchphrase competition.
    Riiight. You were just posting idle chit-chat when you said "Why do you think we need societal changes for the least impactful of these two things, but not the one that kills six times as many people? Shouldn't SOMETHING be done?"


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •