4 ms·

It seems a misdirection to use median across years as we have averages available. It's more precise and more readable but probably doesn't align with the polici

It seems a misdirection to use median across years as we have averages available. It's more precise and more readable but probably doesn't align with the policies you want to push: Norway — 1.888 Serbia — 0.381 France — 0.347 Macedonia — 0.337 Albania — 0.206 Slovakia — 0.185 Switzerland — 0.142 Finland — 0.132 Belgium — 0.128 Czech Republic — 0.123 United States — 0.089 Austria — 0.068 Netherlands — 0.051 Canada — 0.032 England — 0.027 Germany — 0.023 Russia — 0.012 Italy — 0.009 Same website: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shoo...

ProjectArcturis 4y ago
But how else would you make the US greater than zero and all the other countries zero?
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
Also from the same website Many statisticians believe the reason the CRPC study's results seem so counterintuitive is that they are incorrect. One of the more detailed analyses appeared on the fact-checking website snopes.com and concluded that the CRPC report used “inappropriate statistical methods” which led to misleading results.
katamarimambo 4y ago
Brazil would have a 0.25 average. So much better than Norway! Can't argue against "more precise and more readable" data.
zem 4y ago
"A more important oversight was the report's use of average deaths per capita instead of a more stable metric. Because of the smaller populations of most European countries, individual events in those countries had statistically oversized influence and warped the results. For example, Norway’s world-leading annual rate was due to a single devastating 2011 event, in which far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik gunned down 69 people at a summer camp on the island of Utøya. Norway had zero mass shootings in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015."
adammarples 4y ago
On the contrary, median is a much better indication of central tendency here than mean. It is also not less "precise", both statistics are given to the same three decimal places here.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

But how else would you make the US greater than zero and all the other countries zero?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

Also from the same website Many statisticians believe the reason the CRPC study's results seem so counterintuitive is that they are incorrect. One of the more detailed analyses appeared on the fact-checking website snopes.com and concluded that the CRPC report used “inappropriate statistical methods” which led to misleading results.

katamarimambo 4y ago

Brazil would have a 0.25 average. So much better than Norway! Can't argue against "more precise and more readable" data.

zem 4y ago

"A more important oversight was the report's use of average deaths per capita instead of a more stable metric. Because of the smaller populations of most European countries, individual events in those countries had statistically oversized influence and warped the results. For example, Norway’s world-leading annual rate was due to a single devastating 2011 event, in which far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik gunned down 69 people at a summer camp on the island of Utøya. Norway had zero mass shootings in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015."

adammarples 4y ago

On the contrary, median is a much better indication of central tendency here than mean. It is also not less "precise", both statistics are given to the same three decimal places here.