5 ms·

it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can co

it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting. this seems weak. if shootings are rare events stopping one would make a considerable difference. just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection? What if we had a Vegas type event around a school? I don't really understand the thesis here

AstralStorm 9y ago
The problem is that because it is such a rare event, efficacy of any intervention is extremely hard to evaluate. So essentially whatever you do is guesswork. To put it simply: how's do you know if whatever you did has an effect instead of the numbers being a result of a random downswing? (You can know if you can know by employing Bayesian statistics - with these low rates you really cannot.)
- SonicSoul 9y ago
  well what about the idea that other countries adjusted their laws after such incidents and it made a difference in crime statistics?
  - rvo 9y ago
    I hate guns and I want them banned in America. But, crime goes up after gun bans https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-... I am okay with that because it spreads the violence but each instance of violence is less deadly. So for the sake of no school schootings, I will accept increase in general violence. Let's repeal the 2A.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Misleading graph! https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40697/did-the-uk-homicide-rate-go-up-after-handgun-ownership-was-banned https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40697/did-the-u... "Tthere are notes about anomalous events included in each year's numbers. Since the numbers are so low these can throw the graph off. In particular two large events which happened in previous years were reported for 2003 and 2017 respectively which accounts for their anomalous spikes. 2003 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman, one of the most prolific serial killers in history. While these killings happened over 25 years, they're recorded for 2003. 2017 includes 96 victims of Hillsborough which happened in 1989. The data notes other large, anomalous events are noted which can explain spikes in individual years. 2001 includes 58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK. 2004 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay. 2006 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings. 2011 includes 12 victims of Derrick Bird." I would also add that that data is for England and Wales, which excludes both Scotland's notorious history of stabbings and the three thousand deaths in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles, prior to 1997. Some of which were using Armalite AR-18 rifles, as made famous by the murals.
    - jcims 9y ago
      You'd have to collect the guns for it to be effective. There are over 300 million generally unregistered firearms in private possession today, that might get a little tricky.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        Any sensible implementation would be a phasing-out rather than a single sharp transition. It's not going to be like Sweden changing which side of the road they drove on overnight.
        krapp 9y ago
        >Any sensible implementation would be a phasing-out rather than a single sharp transition Many Americans already believe that gun control legislation is part of a program to phase out gun ownership and undermine the Second Amendment - and that's why they're stockpiling guns in expectation of an inevitable civil war. It's never going to not be tricky in the US. Anything approaching what the rest of the world considers "sensible" gun control in the US would first need a massive cultural shift to take place, or an acceptance of protracted guerilla warfare as a consequence.
  - banned1 9y ago
    Other countries are not defined by the idea that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Europe is of course defined by the ECHR rights to life, liberty, and so on. This does not include "the pursuit of happiness" but it's not really clear how the school shootings help with that.
      - banned1 9y ago
        First, Europe is not a country. Second, the ECHR mainly concerns itself with the "duty of states" to protect life, not the people's right to life itself. Here is Article 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Conv... It is relatively recent that courts have even rules on this, primarily with McCaan v UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_and_Others_v_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_and_Others_v_United_Kin... In the US, the right to life and liberty supersedes the right to safety. Based on the founding documents, Americans, because they are HUMANS, are born with the right to protect their lives and to pursue happiness. There is no right to safety (as there is no "RIGHT TO HAPPINESS") as safety would be something that OTHERS would have to provide YOU. Nothing that others must provide you can be a right.
- DanBC 9y ago
  https://twitter.com/CoyoteToledo/status/966832602383552513 https://twitter.com/CoyoteToledo/status/966832602383552513 US: I'm on fire CANADA: jump in the water US: water won't work, i need more fire UK: we used water when we caught fire US: it won't work for us we like fire too much US: I'm burning AUSTRALIA: here is a video of water putting out fire US: *stuffs fire in pockets*
  - jdanp 9y ago
    Actually crime rates in Australia and the USA decreased similarly in the period following Australia's gun ban, despite America's inaction.
    - dvanduzer 9y ago
      Overall crime rate in the US (everywhere?) has decreased since the 1970s or so. There is speculation it had to do with lead paint. There has not been a single "mass shooting" in Australia since the gun ban. In the US, mass shootings decreased after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and then increased after it expired 2004.
      - jdanp 9y ago
        List of Australian mass shootings since the gun ban https://i.redd.it/i0ovzrr4bgj01.jpg https://i.redd.it/i0ovzrr4bgj01.jpg
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    > CANADA: jump in the water Canada has a comparably high-rate of gun ownership and yet a substantially lower murder rate. I've seen plenty of pissing and moaning on firearm forums about their restrictions, more severe than the US', but one could reasonably carry out a massacre up there just as much as one can in the states. It's not the guns. It's us.
    - theluketaylor 9y ago
      Our most right wing national newspaper did a look at many mass shootings in the US and how that same scenario would play out in Canada. The overall conclusion is that not all the shootings could have been prevented by Canadian firearms laws, but many would have been. Interesting read. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-have-stopped-americas-worst-mass-shooters http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-...
sunsunsunsun 9y ago
Also, how come the incidence of these types of shootings are so much lower in other parts of the world if there is no policy that will help prevent them?
- manjushri 9y ago
  Law is not the only variable and is not deterministic. Social environment and cultural values are of great influence. The US media glorifies violence and yet censors the reality of it. How many of those other countries with stricter gun control laws have been involved in as many violent conflicts across the globe as the US?
  - pjc50 9y ago
    The UK has invaded everywhere and has a total ban on handguns after the school shooting incident. (also, perhaps surprisingly to Americans, school trained me on guns at 14: http://atc.wikia.com/wiki/L98A2_Cadet_GP_Rifle http://atc.wikia.com/wiki/L98A2_Cadet_GP_Rifle )
    - manjushri 9y ago
      This discussion is framed around recent decades, not centuries. The US has been far more violent than the UK on the world stage in recent decades.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Excellent question. There can be many factors, among them: - base rate of violent crime in general being lower - lack of access to guns - higher vigilance of school teachers - more mixed rather than segregated environments - more parental oversight and awareness of issues with children - less stressful environment
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > Also, how come the incidence of these types of shootings are so much lower in other parts of the world if there is no policy that will help prevent them? Well, the short answer is that deaths from incidents like this are actually more common, considerably more common, in some other parts of the developed world[0]. The majority of U.S. mass shootings result in no deaths, the overwhelming majority result in one or fewer. Only about 70 of the 474 or so mass shootings in 2017 were also classifiable as "mass murders" (single incidents resulting in four or more unjustified killings). [0]: 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/...
microcolonel 9y ago
> if shootings are rare events stopping one would make a considerable difference. just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection? What if we had a Vegas type event around a school? I don't really understand the thesis here The thesis is that you ought not make expensive, likely unconstitutional policy goals based on a fantasy about stopping a type of crime which happens less than once every seven years (in a country that is several times larger than the next most populous developed country), based on an unlimited attack on all risk. The projected effect of this policy is so low, in fact, that it could just as easily cause more deaths, youth deaths even, than we expect it to limit; and there's a good chance that the policy will do essentially nothing at all, even for the limited cases it applies to. added: If all risks are worthy of unlimited policy resources, I hereby declare that all children should be driven to school in Caterpillar 797s, to avoid the problems of pedestrian collisions and deadly vehicular collisions.
allthenews 9y ago
The thesis is that, because these events are so rare, the cost of prevention outweighs the benefit. Yes, it sounds cold, but human life has a certain value, and just like any rational decision, we have to consider in some objective manner whether conceivable preventative measures are worthwhile. >just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection Do you not normally make decisions regarding the future based on observed past data?
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  The prevention is not free of costs either. Suppose access to guns is limited. An argument can be masse that since fewer people know how to deal with gunmen they will be less able to defend themselves from one so the shooting will be more massive. (I concede it is a weak argument.) Likewise the argument can be made that there might be psychological results from drills like the ones used to allegedly prepare kids.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  So the point you are trying to make is that it's worth giving up a few human lives every year to maintain the status quo?
  - verylittlemeat 9y ago
    As a society we make decisions like this all the time. How about cars?
    - uurrnn 9y ago
      Cars provide a much more useful function to society.
      - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
        Alcohol and tobacco don't.
  - 9y ago

AstralStorm 9y ago

The problem is that because it is such a rare event, efficacy of any intervention is extremely hard to evaluate. So essentially whatever you do is guesswork. To put it simply: how's do you know if whatever you did has an effect instead of the numbers being a result of a random downswing? (You can know if you can know by employing Bayesian statistics - with these low rates you really cannot.)

SonicSoul 9y ago
well what about the idea that other countries adjusted their laws after such incidents and it made a difference in crime statistics?
- rvo 9y ago
  I hate guns and I want them banned in America. But, crime goes up after gun bans https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-... I am okay with that because it spreads the violence but each instance of violence is less deadly. So for the sake of no school schootings, I will accept increase in general violence. Let's repeal the 2A.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Misleading graph! https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40697/did-the-uk-homicide-rate-go-up-after-handgun-ownership-was-banned https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40697/did-the-u... "Tthere are notes about anomalous events included in each year's numbers. Since the numbers are so low these can throw the graph off. In particular two large events which happened in previous years were reported for 2003 and 2017 respectively which accounts for their anomalous spikes. 2003 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman, one of the most prolific serial killers in history. While these killings happened over 25 years, they're recorded for 2003. 2017 includes 96 victims of Hillsborough which happened in 1989. The data notes other large, anomalous events are noted which can explain spikes in individual years. 2001 includes 58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK. 2004 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay. 2006 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings. 2011 includes 12 victims of Derrick Bird." I would also add that that data is for England and Wales, which excludes both Scotland's notorious history of stabbings and the three thousand deaths in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles, prior to 1997. Some of which were using Armalite AR-18 rifles, as made famous by the murals.
  - jcims 9y ago
    You'd have to collect the guns for it to be effective. There are over 300 million generally unregistered firearms in private possession today, that might get a little tricky.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Any sensible implementation would be a phasing-out rather than a single sharp transition. It's not going to be like Sweden changing which side of the road they drove on overnight.
      - krapp 9y ago
        >Any sensible implementation would be a phasing-out rather than a single sharp transition Many Americans already believe that gun control legislation is part of a program to phase out gun ownership and undermine the Second Amendment - and that's why they're stockpiling guns in expectation of an inevitable civil war. It's never going to not be tricky in the US. Anything approaching what the rest of the world considers "sensible" gun control in the US would first need a massive cultural shift to take place, or an acceptance of protracted guerilla warfare as a consequence.
- banned1 9y ago
  Other countries are not defined by the idea that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Europe is of course defined by the ECHR rights to life, liberty, and so on. This does not include "the pursuit of happiness" but it's not really clear how the school shootings help with that.
    - banned1 9y ago
      First, Europe is not a country. Second, the ECHR mainly concerns itself with the "duty of states" to protect life, not the people's right to life itself. Here is Article 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Conv... It is relatively recent that courts have even rules on this, primarily with McCaan v UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_and_Others_v_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_and_Others_v_United_Kin... In the US, the right to life and liberty supersedes the right to safety. Based on the founding documents, Americans, because they are HUMANS, are born with the right to protect their lives and to pursue happiness. There is no right to safety (as there is no "RIGHT TO HAPPINESS") as safety would be something that OTHERS would have to provide YOU. Nothing that others must provide you can be a right.
DanBC 9y ago
https://twitter.com/CoyoteToledo/status/966832602383552513 https://twitter.com/CoyoteToledo/status/966832602383552513 US: I'm on fire CANADA: jump in the water US: water won't work, i need more fire UK: we used water when we caught fire US: it won't work for us we like fire too much US: I'm burning AUSTRALIA: here is a video of water putting out fire US: *stuffs fire in pockets*
- jdanp 9y ago
  Actually crime rates in Australia and the USA decreased similarly in the period following Australia's gun ban, despite America's inaction.
  - dvanduzer 9y ago
    Overall crime rate in the US (everywhere?) has decreased since the 1970s or so. There is speculation it had to do with lead paint. There has not been a single "mass shooting" in Australia since the gun ban. In the US, mass shootings decreased after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and then increased after it expired 2004.
    - jdanp 9y ago
      List of Australian mass shootings since the gun ban https://i.redd.it/i0ovzrr4bgj01.jpg https://i.redd.it/i0ovzrr4bgj01.jpg
- mieseratte 9y ago
  > CANADA: jump in the water Canada has a comparably high-rate of gun ownership and yet a substantially lower murder rate. I've seen plenty of pissing and moaning on firearm forums about their restrictions, more severe than the US', but one could reasonably carry out a massacre up there just as much as one can in the states. It's not the guns. It's us.
  - theluketaylor 9y ago
    Our most right wing national newspaper did a look at many mass shootings in the US and how that same scenario would play out in Canada. The overall conclusion is that not all the shootings could have been prevented by Canadian firearms laws, but many would have been. Interesting read. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-have-stopped-americas-worst-mass-shooters http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-...

sunsunsunsun 9y ago

Also, how come the incidence of these types of shootings are so much lower in other parts of the world if there is no policy that will help prevent them?

manjushri 9y ago
Law is not the only variable and is not deterministic. Social environment and cultural values are of great influence. The US media glorifies violence and yet censors the reality of it. How many of those other countries with stricter gun control laws have been involved in as many violent conflicts across the globe as the US?
- pjc50 9y ago
  The UK has invaded everywhere and has a total ban on handguns after the school shooting incident. (also, perhaps surprisingly to Americans, school trained me on guns at 14: http://atc.wikia.com/wiki/L98A2_Cadet_GP_Rifle http://atc.wikia.com/wiki/L98A2_Cadet_GP_Rifle )
  - manjushri 9y ago
    This discussion is framed around recent decades, not centuries. The US has been far more violent than the UK on the world stage in recent decades.
AstralStorm 9y ago
Excellent question. There can be many factors, among them: - base rate of violent crime in general being lower - lack of access to guns - higher vigilance of school teachers - more mixed rather than segregated environments - more parental oversight and awareness of issues with children - less stressful environment
microcolonel 9y ago
> Also, how come the incidence of these types of shootings are so much lower in other parts of the world if there is no policy that will help prevent them? Well, the short answer is that deaths from incidents like this are actually more common, considerably more common, in some other parts of the developed world[0]. The majority of U.S. mass shootings result in no deaths, the overwhelming majority result in one or fewer. Only about 70 of the 474 or so mass shootings in 2017 were also classifiable as "mass murders" (single incidents resulting in four or more unjustified killings). [0]: 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/...

microcolonel 9y ago

> if shootings are rare events stopping one would make a considerable difference. just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection? What if we had a Vegas type event around a school? I don't really understand the thesis here The thesis is that you ought not make expensive, likely unconstitutional policy goals based on a fantasy about stopping a type of crime which happens less than once every seven years (in a country that is several times larger than the next most populous developed country), based on an unlimited attack on all risk. The projected effect of this policy is so low, in fact, that it could just as easily cause more deaths, youth deaths even, than we expect it to limit; and there's a good chance that the policy will do essentially nothing at all, even for the limited cases it applies to. added: If all risks are worthy of unlimited policy resources, I hereby declare that all children should be driven to school in Caterpillar 797s, to avoid the problems of pedestrian collisions and deadly vehicular collisions.

allthenews 9y ago

The thesis is that, because these events are so rare, the cost of prevention outweighs the benefit. Yes, it sounds cold, but human life has a certain value, and just like any rational decision, we have to consider in some objective manner whether conceivable preventative measures are worthwhile. >just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection Do you not normally make decisions regarding the future based on observed past data?

AstralStorm 9y ago
The prevention is not free of costs either. Suppose access to guns is limited. An argument can be masse that since fewer people know how to deal with gunmen they will be less able to defend themselves from one so the shooting will be more massive. (I concede it is a weak argument.) Likewise the argument can be made that there might be psychological results from drills like the ones used to allegedly prepare kids.
craftyguy 9y ago
So the point you are trying to make is that it's worth giving up a few human lives every year to maintain the status quo?
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  As a society we make decisions like this all the time. How about cars?
  - uurrnn 9y ago
    Cars provide a much more useful function to society.
    - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
      Alcohol and tobacco don't.
- 9y ago