6 ms·

We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for mass shootings?

7 points by necessity 10y ago

dalke 10y ago
The editorial author writes: > Using the traditional FBI definition, the EU and the U.S. each experienced 25 mass shootings during the first seven years of Obama’s presidency (January 2009 to December 2015). where > the FBI defines a mass public shooting as four or more deaths in a public place that are not part of some other crime, such as a robbery Mother Jones has a list of US mass shootings from 1982-2016 at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-m... . I count 27 mass shootings in that time period. > But other advanced countries such as France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic also came in above the U.S. That's falls into the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" category. It is not statistically valid to make these comparisons. http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-the-Statistics-of-Mass-Shootings.html http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-th... works through the problem using a better statistical model, and comes to the conclusion that the US rate per capita is about 4x that of the OECD average. I will quote the conclusion from that piece: > To get meaningful information from data concerning mass shootings, it is necessary to be aware of statistical fluctuations that result from an insufficient numbers of incidents. Once that is done, it becomes obvious that the rate of mass shootings in the United States is significantly higher than the other OECD countries. > Of course, this isn't an academic exercise. Nobody will be surprised to learn that there is political motivation behind these attempts to demonstrate that the United States doesn't have horrendous incidences of mass shootings and other gun crimes. If the United States has levels of gun violence comparable with the rest of the world, there is certainly no need for gun-safety legislation. > Our political arena is open enough to debate these issues. But the debate should not involve the abuse of statistics. If people are opposed to gun-safety legislation, they should own the consequences of that opposition rather than try to hide those consequences behind a bogus interpretation of statistics. > Actual lives are at stake.
- jrnichols 10y ago
  > I count 27 mass shootings in that time period. Mother Jones uses a different standard for what they consider a "mass shooting." The FBI "defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed" Looking at the raw spreadsheet, Mother Jones (which has been notoriously anti-gun) seems to be using 3 or more as their criteria for a "mass shooting." That might account for the difference.
  - dalke 10y ago
    I didn't count the 5 entries in that period with 3 deaths. They use the new (since 2014) definition of 3 deaths. Here's the relevant law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/540B https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/540B . You are correct - the Mother Jones table does include the killer, if the killer also died. I checked the killings with 4 deaths. The suspected coffee shop police killer was killed by police at another time, and the Alturas tribal shooting killer was arrested. The killings with 5 and 6 deaths were all done by a single person. So that doesn't explain the discrepancy. The editorial author believes the new definition was done for political reasons, and prefers to use the older one. See http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/ http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-s... for another op-ed by the same author. You'll note that the author has "data on [US] mass public shootings from 1977 to 1999." Why, I wonder, did the author only report on a 7 year baseline, rather than 40 years? That longer baseline would help with the regression to the mean problem intrinsic to this analysis. He's had years to do that. His NY Post piece even chides the FBI for using a too-short baseline since the early 2000s had a fewer than average number of killing. Going back to your "notoriously anti-gun" description. Why does it matter? Mother Jones gave all of their data, with links to the primary source for verification. My cursory spot check found no discrepancies. Since the editorial author appears to be "notoriously" pro-gun, given his book and op-ed pieces, but doesn't give the full data or explain the choice of baseline - and does a poor job of interpreting the numbers - shouldn't those conclusions be even more suspect?
    - jrnichols 10y ago
SudoNhim 10y ago
Grrr. If you adjust for population of course the top places in the list will be dominated by small populations who've had a particularly bad time recently.
noisewaterphd 10y ago
Let's just ban anything that can hurt anyone. Legislation will solve everything. I'm not "pro-gun", I'm pro-freedom, or pro-rights. Rights and freedoms come with sacrifices. Giving up your rights for a false sense of security is naive. Setting aside the infringement of rights topic for a moment, focusing on the tool of destruction is never going to work. There is a much deeper, and more complex problem at work here. We need to identify and understand it. Simplified talking points for political purposes make me sick. As a nation we are smarter than this, so why does it perpetuate? Statistics don't matter, for either side, "gun-control" isn't going to solve the problem. It isn't even part of the solution. Think about how ridiculous it sounds to ban all cars and pressure cookers... "Shall not be infringed..." can not be taken lightly.

7 points by necessity 10y ago

dalke 10y ago

The editorial author writes: > Using the traditional FBI definition, the EU and the U.S. each experienced 25 mass shootings during the first seven years of Obama’s presidency (January 2009 to December 2015). where > the FBI defines a mass public shooting as four or more deaths in a public place that are not part of some other crime, such as a robbery Mother Jones has a list of US mass shootings from 1982-2016 at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-m... . I count 27 mass shootings in that time period. > But other advanced countries such as France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic also came in above the U.S. That's falls into the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" category. It is not statistically valid to make these comparisons. http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-the-Statistics-of-Mass-Shootings.html http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-th... works through the problem using a better statistical model, and comes to the conclusion that the US rate per capita is about 4x that of the OECD average. I will quote the conclusion from that piece: > To get meaningful information from data concerning mass shootings, it is necessary to be aware of statistical fluctuations that result from an insufficient numbers of incidents. Once that is done, it becomes obvious that the rate of mass shootings in the United States is significantly higher than the other OECD countries. > Of course, this isn't an academic exercise. Nobody will be surprised to learn that there is political motivation behind these attempts to demonstrate that the United States doesn't have horrendous incidences of mass shootings and other gun crimes. If the United States has levels of gun violence comparable with the rest of the world, there is certainly no need for gun-safety legislation. > Our political arena is open enough to debate these issues. But the debate should not involve the abuse of statistics. If people are opposed to gun-safety legislation, they should own the consequences of that opposition rather than try to hide those consequences behind a bogus interpretation of statistics. > Actual lives are at stake.

jrnichols 10y ago
> I count 27 mass shootings in that time period. Mother Jones uses a different standard for what they consider a "mass shooting." The FBI "defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed" Looking at the raw spreadsheet, Mother Jones (which has been notoriously anti-gun) seems to be using 3 or more as their criteria for a "mass shooting." That might account for the difference.
- dalke 10y ago
  I didn't count the 5 entries in that period with 3 deaths. They use the new (since 2014) definition of 3 deaths. Here's the relevant law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/540B https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/540B . You are correct - the Mother Jones table does include the killer, if the killer also died. I checked the killings with 4 deaths. The suspected coffee shop police killer was killed by police at another time, and the Alturas tribal shooting killer was arrested. The killings with 5 and 6 deaths were all done by a single person. So that doesn't explain the discrepancy. The editorial author believes the new definition was done for political reasons, and prefers to use the older one. See http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/ http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-s... for another op-ed by the same author. You'll note that the author has "data on [US] mass public shootings from 1977 to 1999." Why, I wonder, did the author only report on a 7 year baseline, rather than 40 years? That longer baseline would help with the regression to the mean problem intrinsic to this analysis. He's had years to do that. His NY Post piece even chides the FBI for using a too-short baseline since the early 2000s had a fewer than average number of killing. Going back to your "notoriously anti-gun" description. Why does it matter? Mother Jones gave all of their data, with links to the primary source for verification. My cursory spot check found no discrepancies. Since the editorial author appears to be "notoriously" pro-gun, given his book and op-ed pieces, but doesn't give the full data or explain the choice of baseline - and does a poor job of interpreting the numbers - shouldn't those conclusions be even more suspect?
  - jrnichols 10y ago

SudoNhim 10y ago

Grrr. If you adjust for population of course the top places in the list will be dominated by small populations who've had a particularly bad time recently.

noisewaterphd 10y ago

Let's just ban anything that can hurt anyone. Legislation will solve everything. I'm not "pro-gun", I'm pro-freedom, or pro-rights. Rights and freedoms come with sacrifices. Giving up your rights for a false sense of security is naive. Setting aside the infringement of rights topic for a moment, focusing on the tool of destruction is never going to work. There is a much deeper, and more complex problem at work here. We need to identify and understand it. Simplified talking points for political purposes make me sick. As a nation we are smarter than this, so why does it perpetuate? Statistics don't matter, for either side, "gun-control" isn't going to solve the problem. It isn't even part of the solution. Think about how ridiculous it sounds to ban all cars and pressure cookers... "Shall not be infringed..." can not be taken lightly.