6 ms·

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 Oba

by 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
    > Here's the relevant law Not sure if they're using that for "mass shootings" as it refers to what they will consider a "serial killing." I did find this interesting article about the varying definitions, though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-have-three-different-definitions-of-mass-shooting-and-we-probably-need-more/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-ha... > Going back to your "notoriously anti-gun" description. Why does it matter? It matters to me because when I see them as a source, I know to do a little more legwork and check the sources before sharing the information that they have presented. Mother Jones is one of an unfortunately long list of websites that I don't trust very much. The bright side to that is that it's spurred me to dig further into topics.
simbalion 10y ago
> 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. Nobody will be surprised to learn that there is a political motivation behind attempts to demostrate that the United States has more horrendous incidences of mass shootings and other gun crimes than other countries, as well. There's a difference I think. The people behind the first cause are motivated by a desire to protect their individual liberties. While the people behind the second cause are motivated by a desire to enhance and protect their unlimited power over everyone else. Gun control debates are irrelevant. You could make a very convincing argument that guns cause all of the violence in the world (untrue), and even if that were right you'd never convince anyone to give up the only thing that equalizes their might to that of someone who is hostile toward them. Especially when your argument is based entirely on the actions of "Other People".

by dalke 10y ago

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
  > Here's the relevant law Not sure if they're using that for "mass shootings" as it refers to what they will consider a "serial killing." I did find this interesting article about the varying definitions, though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-have-three-different-definitions-of-mass-shooting-and-we-probably-need-more/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-ha... > Going back to your "notoriously anti-gun" description. Why does it matter? It matters to me because when I see them as a source, I know to do a little more legwork and check the sources before sharing the information that they have presented. Mother Jones is one of an unfortunately long list of websites that I don't trust very much. The bright side to that is that it's spurred me to dig further into topics.

simbalion 10y ago

> 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. Nobody will be surprised to learn that there is a political motivation behind attempts to demostrate that the United States has more horrendous incidences of mass shootings and other gun crimes than other countries, as well. There's a difference I think. The people behind the first cause are motivated by a desire to protect their individual liberties. While the people behind the second cause are motivated by a desire to enhance and protect their unlimited power over everyone else. Gun control debates are irrelevant. You could make a very convincing argument that guns cause all of the violence in the world (untrue), and even if that were right you'd never convince anyone to give up the only thing that equalizes their might to that of someone who is hostile toward them. Especially when your argument is based entirely on the actions of "Other People".