3 ms·

>after all, they seem to be a very much USA localized issue Absolutely false. Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland all had more shooting rampages

by wyager 11y ago

>after all, they seem to be a very much USA localized issue Absolutely false. Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland all had more shooting rampages (and deaths thereof) per capita than the United States (at least from 2009-2013, which the data covers). http://archive.is/f4gbv http://archive.is/f4gbv

izacus 11y ago
Does USA being a 4th most common place of shootings invalidate my point of trying to find a root cause instead of surveilance?
- wyager 11y ago
  Not at all. I just hate the meme of "the US is super violent and dangerous". In reality, deaths from rampages are more or less statistically negligible. The idea that we have to "solve" rampages at all might be incorrect. It may be an unproductive use of resources, when there are many bigger causes of death that we could probably mitigate more effectively for the same cost.
sanbor 11y ago
I disagree with your way of reading the numbers. United states has 38 "Total Fatal Rampage Shooting Incidents (2009-2013)". All other countries has 0, 1 or 2 incidents. How can dividing the victims per capita can help you understand if this kind of things happen more often in a country than in other?
- barsonme 11y ago
  Not just per-capita victims. If you read the chart's third column: > Fatal Rampage Shooting Incidents (2009-2013) Per 1,000,000 The U.S. is 0.12, putting it behind Norway (0.19), Finland (0.37), Slovakia (0.19), Israel (0.25), and Switzerland (0.25). Simply looking at the raw number of shootings is misleading at best because: 1. Countries with a larger population are typically at higher risk of more shootings. (The two countries with >= 1/3 as large of a population as the U.S. are Japan and Mexico.) 2. It does not take into account culture or socioeconomic issues (other than only sampling the "Industrialized West") 3. Countries with more firearms will typically have a higher risk or more shootings

by wyager 11y ago

izacus 11y ago

Does USA being a 4th most common place of shootings invalidate my point of trying to find a root cause instead of surveilance?

wyager 11y ago
Not at all. I just hate the meme of "the US is super violent and dangerous". In reality, deaths from rampages are more or less statistically negligible. The idea that we have to "solve" rampages at all might be incorrect. It may be an unproductive use of resources, when there are many bigger causes of death that we could probably mitigate more effectively for the same cost.

sanbor 11y ago

I disagree with your way of reading the numbers. United states has 38 "Total Fatal Rampage Shooting Incidents (2009-2013)". All other countries has 0, 1 or 2 incidents. How can dividing the victims per capita can help you understand if this kind of things happen more often in a country than in other?

barsonme 11y ago
Not just per-capita victims. If you read the chart's third column: > Fatal Rampage Shooting Incidents (2009-2013) Per 1,000,000 The U.S. is 0.12, putting it behind Norway (0.19), Finland (0.37), Slovakia (0.19), Israel (0.25), and Switzerland (0.25). Simply looking at the raw number of shootings is misleading at best because: 1. Countries with a larger population are typically at higher risk of more shootings. (The two countries with >= 1/3 as large of a population as the U.S. are Japan and Mexico.) 2. It does not take into account culture or socioeconomic issues (other than only sampling the "Industrialized West") 3. Countries with more firearms will typically have a higher risk or more shootings