4 ms·

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

by blfr 11y ago

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.

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

by blfr 11y ago

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

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.