10 ms·
> even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe ok let's try data instead of feels. Per Capita, what is
by Graphon1 1y ago
> even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe
ok let's try data instead of feels. Per Capita, what is the number of mass shootings per year in the USA, and in Japan. I did't know the answer but asked Gemini.
The most recent year for which there is data, apparently, is 2023, during which there were 604 mass shootings in the USA, and 1 in Japan. Given the respective population counts, the per-capita rate of mass shootings in the United States was about 225 times higher than in Japan.
Given that, are you confident that your observation that "one guy made a gun once in Japan" is a strong refutation of the idea that the US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
- reissbaker 1y agoThis was not a mass shooting.
- abustamam 1y agoI think the fact that this wasn't a mass shooting makes it even worse.
- tenuousemphasis 1y agoWhat an unhinged thing to say.
- abustamam 1y agoSorry, upon re-reading my comment, I communicated my thought incorrectly. My intention was to point out that the not-mass shooting overshadowed the mass shooting in the news. Obviously both are bad, but 3 people dying in a single shooting incident is worse than 1 person dying in a single shooting incident, yet the 1 person dying is the one that gets the news coverage.
- account42 1y agoPeople aren't equal in the eyes of the public media. News at eleven.
- abustamam 1y agoI think that points out something even more horrifying about the American news cycle. A social media influencer being killed vs high school students being killed. Perhaps that's a bit reductive but I feel like the HS shooting ought to be a LOT more shocking, if it weren't a headline that we sadly have become somewhat blind to.
- potato3732842 1y ago[flagged]
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago> The U.S. averages one to two mass shootings per day, with the specific rate varying by year and definition. Organizations like the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) define a mass shooting as an incident where at least four people are shot and either killed or injured, not including the shooter. For example, the GVA reported the U.S. averaged two mass shootings per day in the first half of 2023, with a record-breaking number in 2021. Here is an Axios article where Gemini is getting its information from: > https://www.axios.com/2023/07/31/us-mass-shooting-2-every-day-2023-stats https://www.axios.com/2023/07/31/us-mass-shooting-2-every-da... The data is available at: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ We are at 300 so far this year. You can click on mass shootings and get an enumerated list for this year with incidents and sources, I'm not sure if you can go back to other years also: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting You could sample some of the incidents and see if they are being honest or not.
- wyre 1y agoNot believing facts because you don’t want to believe them? Says everything we need to know.
- tekknik 1y agomore like mass shooting is poorly defined
- mjlawson 1y agoMore like that it's politically defined when the numbers become inconvenient.
- abustamam 1y agoWhile "mass shooting" does not have a solid agreed upon definition, there is a commonly accepted definition when we talk about one in the US. It's a shooting incident in which there are 4 or more casualties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United... That's a very low bar.
- artificialLimbs 1y agoIf every adult that could carry a gun did, there would be much less mass shooting. It would be minimized shooting, in fact.
- maest 1y agoThis seems tenuous and directionally wrong based on priors. What evidence do you have for this?
- artificialLimbs 1y agohttps://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-g... Now, how about your evidence?
- inkcapmushroom 1y agohttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/ https://rockinst.org/blog/public-mass-shootings-around-the-world-prevalence-context-and-prevention/ https://rockinst.org/blog/public-mass-shootings-around-the-w... The US is an outlier in how many guns we own, with about 1/3 of American adults owning guns, and we are also an extreme outlier in mass shootings unless you compare us to places that lack rule of law. How many more people need guns before that mass shooting number goes down to 0, do you think?
- maest 1y agoGiven your link, I'd say every shooting where the bad guy didn't get shot is evidence in the opposite direction? Seems to me there's more of those than your 11 examples.
- tirant 1y agoThat would only be true in a world where every single human is able to regulate their angry emotions immediately. But that is so far away from human nature...
- tekknik 1y ago> US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations? How? without decreasing access for sane people or using any of the previous talking points that have been rejected previously. now’s the time to suggest real change that could have an effect but suggesting the tired “no black rifles” will still go nowhere.
- paulryanrogers 1y agoNew regulation: no private citizens can possess guns, and police must account for every bullet and firearm. Granted, this decreases access for everyone. But I'd argue sane people would not demand private gun ownership in today's environment.
- tekknik 1y ago[flagged]
- stronglikedan 1y agothere are plenty of regulations already. what we need is to start enforcing them. and also mental heath destigmatization and assistance, since it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
- ruszki 1y agoWhy cannot it be both? You definitely have a gun problem, and also a mental health problem. And you even have a mentality problem by thinking that gun is fine on you just to be safe, which is quite acceptable thought over there - the reaction of Americans vs Europeans to the fact that somebody has a gun on them in a friendly group is quite stark. But you have also a stochastic terrorism problem, a grifter problem, an inequality problem, an almost zero social net problem, many monopoly problems. All of these exaggerate your murder problem. And you clearly have a “too few people want to solve these” problem. Most of you even voted to the person who campaigned that he wants to make these worse. This won’t be solved, and will it be made worse in America for the next decade for sure.
- insurancesucks 1y ago[dead]
- extropic-engine 1y ago> But the vast majority of those 604 shootings are from gang members with many prior arrests shooting each other. You are just blindly asserting this. Do you have any sources?
- insurancesucks 1y ago"Of 267 incidents this year classified as mass shootings by the Gun Violence Archive, nearly all can be tied to gang beefs, neighborhood arguments, robberies or domestic incidents that spiraled out of control. Indiscriminate slaughter by a lone gunman blasting away at a store, school or some other public place is rare, according to a Washington Times analysis of the archive’s data, accounting for less than 4% of the total." https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/16/street-brawls-gang-gunfights-dominate-causes-267-m/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/16/street-braw... This is 2022. These numbers roughly replicate for any year though.
- nullocator 1y agoMaybe the shooter was just having a "neighborhood argument" with Kirk? I'm struggling to understand what point you're even trying to make? Gun violence is not a concern when we bucket it into categories? Some categories of gun violence are more okay than others?
- extropic-engine 1y agosorry, but “the washington times,” a site whose design and name seems suspiciously chosen to mirror that of the more well known and respected washington post, is not a reputable source by any metric that is not in bad faith. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times it was founded in 1982 by a cult leader. try again
- Glyptodon 1y agoI think you're basically ignoring my point - that increasing numbers of targeted assassinations are not really a gun control issue (today's was seemingly a single shot, so things being discussed in this thread seem pretty not related), but a sign of major societal problems that need to be addressed. Your response seems very off topic in focusing on "mass shootings" which are at best an ill-defined marketing term created to lump family annihilation suicides with more public mass casualty events like the pulse nightclub shooting in order to launder dubious policies. But my whole original comment said nothing about mass shootings to begin with.
- jrflowers 1y ago> I think you're basically ignoring my point You didn’t clarify that by “everything that’s happening” as the preface to your suggestion that gun control is pointless you specifically meant “political assassination and no other gun deaths”. It’s reasonable that someone would see you say that gun regulation wouldn’t have an effect on gun deaths and think that you were talking about gun deaths generally. It would actually be bizarre for a reader to read “everything that’s happening” and think “the person that wrote this is referring to the first shooting at a school today and specifically excluding the second shooting at a school today”
- jmull 1y agoStrong gun regulations have a couple of orders of magnitude impact on one type of gun violence, but you think that’s irrelevant and off-topic to whether strong gun regulations would have an impact on another form of gun violence? How could that make any sense?
- watwut 1y agoAsking geminy is like copy pasting a random reddit comment. Fine if it links the resource, not fine otherwise.
- refurb 1y agoYou’re quoting statistics that are irrelevant to the point. Mass shootings are not political violence. I can come up with a multitude of political violence examples in countries with strict weapons laws - New Zealand, France, Japan. Then if you add in other weapons - cars, knives, bombs, the list gets even longer. The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago> The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal. Technically true. But gun control means political violence will have to engage much closer and is less likely to be as deadly. Do we want more or less death+maiming in our political violence?
- refurb 1y agoYou’re missing the forest for the trees. The issue is political violence. Whether it’s done up close or far away is a distraction from the fact it exists.
- paulryanrogers 1y agoAm I? The forest view is that political violence is an inevitable part of life. And that outlawing guns makes them less accessible and therefore less likely to be used in any violent interactions.
- refurb 1y agoYou are. No, political violence isn't an "inevitable part of life".
- paulryanrogers 1y agoViolence is part of human nature. So is politics. I'd rather they didn't mix, and we take reasonable measures to stop all violence. But I don't see how we can make violence impossible without changing human nature.
- ivape 1y agoHow come there’s no gun violence in prison but plenty of stabbings? Prison is the highest concentration of violent criminals and yet no gun violence. To quote the great Eddie Izzard, “you can’t just walk up to someone and yell BANG. The gun helps”.
- Glyptodon 1y agoI can't tell if your comment is serious. Did you know that if everyone lived in a 7x7 cell they couldn't leave there'd be no drunk driving deaths too?
- ivape 1y agoThere’s positives to cars that far outweigh the cost of drunk driving. Gun ownership does not “far outweigh” its consequences. I will just casually ignore your reductionist argument, I’m sure you’ll understand. Reasonable people don’t argue that way as all arguments would just … boil down to nothing.
- Glyptodon 1y agoIt's hard to take your argument seriously given that (a) prisons are an intentional police state and a generally unpleasant abode, (b) people are still violently dying in them anyway (well over double non-prison homicide rate even with somewhat effective dangerous property restrictions), (c) there's no sane way to apply prison levels of property restriction to the public at large outside of prisons (and we live in a world where the ability to fabricate weapons at home grows day by day), (d) whether gun ownership outweighs its downsides is as similarly complex and judgement driven a question as whether cars do: both have complex downside and benefits with situational and unclear boundaries. That people can with a straight face "why should anyone need a gun" in a country with food deserts and regions with deer overpopulation problems while often treating "why should anyone need a Lamborghini?" as an offensive or silly question only illustrates.