10 ms·

Another way I've seen statistics misused when advocating for gun control is bringing up the high number of "mass shootings" any time an event makes the news. T

by dx87 7y ago

Another way I've seen statistics misused when advocating for gun control is bringing up the high number of "mass shootings" any time an event makes the news. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I'm not trying to imply that gang shootings are acceptable, but it's misleading to lump them in with school shootings to push the "think about the children" angle.

bluedino 7y ago
One thing I don't get is Mother Jones excludes shootings that result from domestic violence, drug deals and gang activity.
- surge 7y ago
  Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't really work to stop those, and those deaths are usually the result overwhelmingly of handguns, not AR-15's or "assault style rifles" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look militaristic and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. In this case, the numbers don't help their agenda. The most effective forms of gun control should be focused on guns used in the majority of crime, which are handguns, but that's not the discussion that's being had because the gun debate is media driven, which is centered around mass shootings (greater shock factor, better ratings), which statistically are the rarest and of least concern by numbers (I think gun death/homicides by rifle < 300 even including mass shootings). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 AR-15s are also very popular because they're a platform you can take an AR-15 lower, and or buy a cheap one and build up slowly over time until you have a very nice and accurate rifle. They look militaristic because their metal exterior but when people say they're identical functionally to hunting rifles, they're not lying when it comes to the part that handles firing the bullet. I'll also leave people with this: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280 https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation. Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Here's the trouble with that argument: > Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.
      - mikeyouse 7y ago
        We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures. Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out. And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
        7y ago
kasey_junk 7y ago
The vast majority of gun violence of all types, suicides, gang murders, mass shootings, domestic violence etc. are committed with hand guns. Hand gun ownership popularity is at a high in the US across many demographics. But assault rifle bans are the most popular form of gun control, probably because of the popularity of hand guns.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  >probably because of the popularity of hand guns. I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips. Edit: clarifying word
  - kasey_junk 7y ago
    It’s a common contention of the gun advocacy community that it’s ignorance that drives awb, but that flies in the face of the evidence that veterans are disproportionately represented in elected officials, police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation & its a subject that is easily researchable. I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extremes and that leads to weird compromises.
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. Veterans generally don't support more gun control (I am one), but you're right that political motivations can cause weird bedfellows. Anyway, I wasn't really talking about politicians as it were ... more the general public.
    - stevenicr 7y ago
      when "police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation" - they could have their own protection interest in mind more than yours. When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer... If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.
peter422 7y ago
I’m sure a lot of children are directly and indirectly affected by gang violence. Are you saying that if all mass shootings were only caused by gang violence than people not in gangs shouldn’t be concerned about potentially helping reduce them?
throwaway2048 7y ago
They get lumped in because they are real mass shootings where tons of people die, but if you explain it as gang violence, it will be immediately ignored as something black/hispanic people do.
everdev 7y ago
> The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I think the difference is gang shootings typically take place in rough neighborhoods. When you enter a high crime area you're aware of an elevated risk. Innocent bystanders do get killed but it's probably a much lower percentage than the gang members. As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it. Terrorism and mass shootings are horrific because they typically take place in previously safe areas and claim almost exclusively innocent bystanders. If you have children in school, they now practice "Code Red" drills where they lock the classroom and hide to simulate an active shooter. Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear. While the number of deaths from terrorism are far lower, the fear is probably far higher because kids grow up thinking/knowing it could happen anywhere. I think for this reason people focus more on these mass shootings and how to prevent them.
- knolax 7y ago
  > As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it. I'm going to preface this by saying I have no opinion on gun control. Gang members don't live in neighborhoods inhabited exclusively by other gang members (I doubt they make up the majority in any neighborhood). The people who live in these neighborhoods never consented to this, and it's much harder for them to move than to avoid public areas so imho gang violence is just as bad if not worst than any other type of shooting.
- finnthehuman 7y ago
  >Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear. The level of fear instilled into the population is wildly disconnected from the realities of risk and we've known this for decades. Whether it's the security theater at the airport, modern day duck-and-cover, or whatever the 6pm news is scaring old people with this week; the line of reasoning that goes something like "we taught people to fear risk X, the way to alleviate the fear is to reduce the likelihood of X" is the most asinine bullshit in the world.
c0nducktr 7y ago
Why is gang violence somehow more acceptable than "regular" violence? Minors are victims of "gang violence" too. And TBH, I don't really give a shit about the age of the victims. It's the same result, a life ended prematurely by someone else. While you can make an argument that and adult who died by gun violence got more of a chance at life than child who died from the same, you can't really say that the crime is any different. Murder is murder. Against a child, against an 40-something, and against an elderly person. What is taken away remains the same. Trying to make the murder of children worse only serves to decrease the severity of murder of an elderly person.
- ericmcer 7y ago
  I feel some control over whether or not I’m in a gang, but little over whether I happen to be shopping at the mall at the wrong time. That’s why gang violence is more acceptable I guess?
  - c0nducktr 7y ago
    You had control over that? You had the option to join a gang, and chose not to? Nobody gets to decide the situation in to which they're born.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      That’s a ridiculously offensive viewpoint. Most kids born into tough circumstances choose not to join a gang.
      - Omnitaus 7y ago
        The person you're responding to didn't say that.

by dx87 7y ago

bluedino 7y ago

One thing I don't get is Mother Jones excludes shootings that result from domestic violence, drug deals and gang activity.

surge 7y ago
Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't really work to stop those, and those deaths are usually the result overwhelmingly of handguns, not AR-15's or "assault style rifles" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look militaristic and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. In this case, the numbers don't help their agenda. The most effective forms of gun control should be focused on guns used in the majority of crime, which are handguns, but that's not the discussion that's being had because the gun debate is media driven, which is centered around mass shootings (greater shock factor, better ratings), which statistically are the rarest and of least concern by numbers (I think gun death/homicides by rifle < 300 even including mass shootings). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 AR-15s are also very popular because they're a platform you can take an AR-15 lower, and or buy a cheap one and build up slowly over time until you have a very nice and accurate rifle. They look militaristic because their metal exterior but when people say they're identical functionally to hunting rifles, they're not lying when it comes to the part that handles firing the bullet. I'll also leave people with this: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280 https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation. Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Here's the trouble with that argument: > Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.
    - mikeyouse 7y ago
      We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures. Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out. And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
        7y ago

kasey_junk 7y ago

The vast majority of gun violence of all types, suicides, gang murders, mass shootings, domestic violence etc. are committed with hand guns. Hand gun ownership popularity is at a high in the US across many demographics. But assault rifle bans are the most popular form of gun control, probably because of the popularity of hand guns.

remarkEon 7y ago
>probably because of the popularity of hand guns. I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips. Edit: clarifying word
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  It’s a common contention of the gun advocacy community that it’s ignorance that drives awb, but that flies in the face of the evidence that veterans are disproportionately represented in elected officials, police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation & its a subject that is easily researchable. I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extremes and that leads to weird compromises.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. Veterans generally don't support more gun control (I am one), but you're right that political motivations can cause weird bedfellows. Anyway, I wasn't really talking about politicians as it were ... more the general public.
  - stevenicr 7y ago
    when "police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation" - they could have their own protection interest in mind more than yours. When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer... If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.

peter422 7y ago

I’m sure a lot of children are directly and indirectly affected by gang violence. Are you saying that if all mass shootings were only caused by gang violence than people not in gangs shouldn’t be concerned about potentially helping reduce them?

throwaway2048 7y ago

They get lumped in because they are real mass shootings where tons of people die, but if you explain it as gang violence, it will be immediately ignored as something black/hispanic people do.

everdev 7y ago

> The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I think the difference is gang shootings typically take place in rough neighborhoods. When you enter a high crime area you're aware of an elevated risk. Innocent bystanders do get killed but it's probably a much lower percentage than the gang members. As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it. Terrorism and mass shootings are horrific because they typically take place in previously safe areas and claim almost exclusively innocent bystanders. If you have children in school, they now practice "Code Red" drills where they lock the classroom and hide to simulate an active shooter. Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear. While the number of deaths from terrorism are far lower, the fear is probably far higher because kids grow up thinking/knowing it could happen anywhere. I think for this reason people focus more on these mass shootings and how to prevent them.

knolax 7y ago
> As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it. I'm going to preface this by saying I have no opinion on gun control. Gang members don't live in neighborhoods inhabited exclusively by other gang members (I doubt they make up the majority in any neighborhood). The people who live in these neighborhoods never consented to this, and it's much harder for them to move than to avoid public areas so imho gang violence is just as bad if not worst than any other type of shooting.
finnthehuman 7y ago
>Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear. The level of fear instilled into the population is wildly disconnected from the realities of risk and we've known this for decades. Whether it's the security theater at the airport, modern day duck-and-cover, or whatever the 6pm news is scaring old people with this week; the line of reasoning that goes something like "we taught people to fear risk X, the way to alleviate the fear is to reduce the likelihood of X" is the most asinine bullshit in the world.

c0nducktr 7y ago

Why is gang violence somehow more acceptable than "regular" violence? Minors are victims of "gang violence" too. And TBH, I don't really give a shit about the age of the victims. It's the same result, a life ended prematurely by someone else. While you can make an argument that and adult who died by gun violence got more of a chance at life than child who died from the same, you can't really say that the crime is any different. Murder is murder. Against a child, against an 40-something, and against an elderly person. What is taken away remains the same. Trying to make the murder of children worse only serves to decrease the severity of murder of an elderly person.

ericmcer 7y ago
I feel some control over whether or not I’m in a gang, but little over whether I happen to be shopping at the mall at the wrong time. That’s why gang violence is more acceptable I guess?
- c0nducktr 7y ago
  You had control over that? You had the option to join a gang, and chose not to? Nobody gets to decide the situation in to which they're born.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    That’s a ridiculously offensive viewpoint. Most kids born into tough circumstances choose not to join a gang.
    - Omnitaus 7y ago
      The person you're responding to didn't say that.