3 ms·

You and the NY Times article are offering up the same thing to defend against active shooters: take personal responsibility for your safety. But why is it that

You and the NY Times article are offering up the same thing to defend against active shooters: take personal responsibility for your safety. But why is it that of all the nations in the civilized world only in the US do the nutjobs go on armed rampages? Why is the origin of nutcases shooting with firearms taken as a given? In the article their existence is taken as an accepted fact; it just talks about how to protect oneself from them. How about reducing the incidence of people running amok with guns, either by restricting guns or reducing whatever precipitates the killing spree? I'm frankly sick of "personal responsibility", it's usually a sign of someone else failing to do their job.

blfr 11y ago
It's not just the US. There has been a very spectacular attack recently in Paris.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  Even with Breivik and the Bataclan attack the US still tops the charts: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/...
  - cgriswald 11y ago
    The article you linked reached a much different conclusion than your comment suggests. Per the article, the United States "tops the charts" only in number of deaths by mass shooting. In terms of death per capita (a slightly more meaningful, but still largely meaningless metric) the US falls from the number one spot to the number 4 spot among the 11 countries studied. But the primary flaw with studies relating mass shootings is that they almost always start with the assumption that guns are the root cause. A more appropriate metric is deaths per capita for mass killings. It is a tautology that were guns are more readily available, mass killers will more often choose to use guns; but the implication that because guns are available there will be more mass killings is demonstrably false. Mass killers have already chosen to kill. In the absence of easily available guns, they most often seem to use arson.
    - HarryHirsch 11y ago
      The article hints that the US dropping to # 4 when using deaths per capita is a statistical artifact caused by large incidents in small nations. There's a blog posting somewhere (also discussed here sometime back) that goes into more detail. Are you intentionally dishonest or just plain stupid? Then again, it doesn't matter, you should know better.
      - cgriswald 11y ago
        > The article hints that the US dropping to # 4 when using deaths per capita is a statistical artifact caused by large incidents in small nations. There's a blog posting somewhere (also discussed here sometime back) that goes into more detail. You are correct that the article makes such hints. However, in your haste to be insulting and pedantic, you missed the broader point that the statistic itself is meaningless in the context of the conversation. The article goes on to give the same caveats I mentioned in my post (and which you have ignored). You cited this article to support your point of view, but the article itself refutes it. > Are you intentionally dishonest or just plain stupid? Then again, it doesn't matter, you should know better. Why would I mention a technicality that has no bearing for or against my point? Do you consider that more or less dishonest than linking to something that says one thing and suggesting that, in fact, it says another? I didn't doubt your honesty or integrity until now, when you've doubted mine. The pattern matching part of my brain tells me that people who are quick to see the worst in others are often not the best themselves. Have a nice day.
      - dang 11y ago
        > Are you intentionally dishonest or just plain stupid? Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
beagle3 11y ago
Also, once you have murder on your mind, every other unlawful deed is free, including the procuring of weapons. I did not follow closely, but IIRC the San Bernardino murderers built their own bombs. Gun control might be useful, but it is not the panacea that the media and politicians are describing. FYI, access to firearms in Israel and Switzerland is actually easier than in the US, and yet there are fewer (essentially no) mass shootings[0] -- and Paris has much stricter gun control than the either. It's not as simple as recent political speeches make it. [0] I'm ignoring anything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - that one's a war, shooting is to be expected, unfortunately.
- recuter 11y ago
  I assure you that access to firearms in Israel is not easier than in the US.
  - beagle3 11y ago
    An 18 year old Israeli going into the army is forced to have a weapon while in basic training, encouraged or forced to have a weapon through most of their service (~3 years) depending on the unit they are in. It is harder to buy a weapon in Israel than in some parts of the US (though, likely easier than NY or NJ), but _accessing_ a weapon is easier. And I say that having lived in both countries.
cgriswald 11y ago
> But why is it that of all the nations in the civilized world only in the US do the nutjobs go on armed rampages? I was not aware that Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany, and company were part of the United States. > Why is the origin of nutcases shooting with firearms taken as a given? In the article their existence is taken as an accepted fact; it just talks about how to protect oneself from them. You've reached a strange conclusion here. Mass shootings (and other types of mass killings) happpen. Taking responsibility for your personal safety is simply prudent. You, individually, can probably not prevent all or even one mass shooting from occuring (perhaps, if you are very lucky, you could stop ONE mass shooting in your lifetime). You can, however, make sure you are prepared to keep yourself safe from mass shootings and other dangerous situations. The fact is, we haven't taken a serious look at the causes of mass shootings. It's a difficult problem with no clear solutions. Gun control advocates muddy the waters further by blaming the attacks on the availability of guns, even though there is ample evidence that guns only turn the phrase "mass killing" into the phrase "mass shooting". The term "mass shooting" itself is largely political. We don't talk about "mass burnings" when people are killed with arson or "mass poisonings" when people are attack with poison gas.
- foldr 11y ago
  > there is ample evidence that guns only turn the phrase "mass killing" into the phrase "mass shooting". Not so sure about that. Did you hear about the following? A crazy guy with a knife might kill or seriously would a handful of people at most. With a gun the number of deaths is likely to be much higher. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/05/suspect-custody-after-stabbing-leytonstone-london-underground-station http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/05/suspect-custo... >We don't talk about "mass burnings" when people are killed with arson or "mass poisonings" when people are attack with poison gas. The phrase "mass poisoning" is in fact used, but in accord with the usual meaning of "poisoning" tends to be restricted to cases where poison was introduced into food or water. "Mass burning" is not used simply because English does not typically use the noun "burning" to refer to deaths by burning.
andrewmcwatters 11y ago
Maybe it has something to do with how pathetically, insignificantly small those nations are compared to the US. > I'm frankly sick of "personal responsibility" Only on HN.

blfr 11y ago

It's not just the US. There has been a very spectacular attack recently in Paris.

HarryHirsch 11y ago
Even with Breivik and the Bataclan attack the US still tops the charts: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/...
- cgriswald 11y ago
  The article you linked reached a much different conclusion than your comment suggests. Per the article, the United States "tops the charts" only in number of deaths by mass shooting. In terms of death per capita (a slightly more meaningful, but still largely meaningless metric) the US falls from the number one spot to the number 4 spot among the 11 countries studied. But the primary flaw with studies relating mass shootings is that they almost always start with the assumption that guns are the root cause. A more appropriate metric is deaths per capita for mass killings. It is a tautology that were guns are more readily available, mass killers will more often choose to use guns; but the implication that because guns are available there will be more mass killings is demonstrably false. Mass killers have already chosen to kill. In the absence of easily available guns, they most often seem to use arson.
  - HarryHirsch 11y ago
    The article hints that the US dropping to # 4 when using deaths per capita is a statistical artifact caused by large incidents in small nations. There's a blog posting somewhere (also discussed here sometime back) that goes into more detail. Are you intentionally dishonest or just plain stupid? Then again, it doesn't matter, you should know better.
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      > The article hints that the US dropping to # 4 when using deaths per capita is a statistical artifact caused by large incidents in small nations. There's a blog posting somewhere (also discussed here sometime back) that goes into more detail. You are correct that the article makes such hints. However, in your haste to be insulting and pedantic, you missed the broader point that the statistic itself is meaningless in the context of the conversation. The article goes on to give the same caveats I mentioned in my post (and which you have ignored). You cited this article to support your point of view, but the article itself refutes it. > Are you intentionally dishonest or just plain stupid? Then again, it doesn't matter, you should know better. Why would I mention a technicality that has no bearing for or against my point? Do you consider that more or less dishonest than linking to something that says one thing and suggesting that, in fact, it says another? I didn't doubt your honesty or integrity until now, when you've doubted mine. The pattern matching part of my brain tells me that people who are quick to see the worst in others are often not the best themselves. Have a nice day.
    - dang 11y ago
      > Are you intentionally dishonest or just plain stupid? Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.

beagle3 11y ago

Also, once you have murder on your mind, every other unlawful deed is free, including the procuring of weapons. I did not follow closely, but IIRC the San Bernardino murderers built their own bombs. Gun control might be useful, but it is not the panacea that the media and politicians are describing. FYI, access to firearms in Israel and Switzerland is actually easier than in the US, and yet there are fewer (essentially no) mass shootings[0] -- and Paris has much stricter gun control than the either. It's not as simple as recent political speeches make it. [0] I'm ignoring anything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - that one's a war, shooting is to be expected, unfortunately.

recuter 11y ago
I assure you that access to firearms in Israel is not easier than in the US.
- beagle3 11y ago
  An 18 year old Israeli going into the army is forced to have a weapon while in basic training, encouraged or forced to have a weapon through most of their service (~3 years) depending on the unit they are in. It is harder to buy a weapon in Israel than in some parts of the US (though, likely easier than NY or NJ), but _accessing_ a weapon is easier. And I say that having lived in both countries.

cgriswald 11y ago

> But why is it that of all the nations in the civilized world only in the US do the nutjobs go on armed rampages? I was not aware that Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany, and company were part of the United States. > Why is the origin of nutcases shooting with firearms taken as a given? In the article their existence is taken as an accepted fact; it just talks about how to protect oneself from them. You've reached a strange conclusion here. Mass shootings (and other types of mass killings) happpen. Taking responsibility for your personal safety is simply prudent. You, individually, can probably not prevent all or even one mass shooting from occuring (perhaps, if you are very lucky, you could stop ONE mass shooting in your lifetime). You can, however, make sure you are prepared to keep yourself safe from mass shootings and other dangerous situations. The fact is, we haven't taken a serious look at the causes of mass shootings. It's a difficult problem with no clear solutions. Gun control advocates muddy the waters further by blaming the attacks on the availability of guns, even though there is ample evidence that guns only turn the phrase "mass killing" into the phrase "mass shooting". The term "mass shooting" itself is largely political. We don't talk about "mass burnings" when people are killed with arson or "mass poisonings" when people are attack with poison gas.

foldr 11y ago
> there is ample evidence that guns only turn the phrase "mass killing" into the phrase "mass shooting". Not so sure about that. Did you hear about the following? A crazy guy with a knife might kill or seriously would a handful of people at most. With a gun the number of deaths is likely to be much higher. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/05/suspect-custody-after-stabbing-leytonstone-london-underground-station http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/05/suspect-custo... >We don't talk about "mass burnings" when people are killed with arson or "mass poisonings" when people are attack with poison gas. The phrase "mass poisoning" is in fact used, but in accord with the usual meaning of "poisoning" tends to be restricted to cases where poison was introduced into food or water. "Mass burning" is not used simply because English does not typically use the noun "burning" to refer to deaths by burning.

andrewmcwatters 11y ago

Maybe it has something to do with how pathetically, insignificantly small those nations are compared to the US. > I'm frankly sick of "personal responsibility" Only on HN.