6 ms·

>15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States. In second place is Finland, with two entries. That's a bit of a dispar

by slyn 14y ago

>15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States. In second place is Finland, with two entries. That's a bit of a disparity. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/n...

pjscott 14y ago
The United States also has more than 50 times the population of Finland. Normalize!
- slyn 14y ago
  Clearly you didn't take time to read the aforementioned article at all, or you would've seen the graph that puts the USA at roughly a bit more than triple the assault deaths per 100k vs an eyeball average of the other OECD nations (down from maybe 8-9 times as many in the 80s.) I pulled the above statistic because of the specific context of mass shootings. But hey, at least you got a pithy retort out of it.
- justincormack 14y ago
  Here is the list http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings... It certainly looks like Scandinavia and the UK might have a problem. Europe as a whole still has fewer than the US for a similar population but it is high. None for China, India or Brazil. So it is not just about normalisation...
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Apparently, Brazil had its first just last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting
  - mosselman 14y ago
    Please. 'it is high' in Europe'? Playing it fast and loose with the word 'high' if you ask me. Of those mentioned in the list; 6 in the past 25 years are in Europe. 3 shootings, on this list alone, happened in the US in the past 6 months! Most European countries probably haven't had any of this type of thing happen in the past 25+ years.
    - justincormack 14y ago
      Well, its not very statistically significant anyway, but the number outside the US and Europe at all is very small. There are too many in Europe to say they are non existent... sure nothing like the US. Most European countries are very small which was what this thread was about.
    - tylee78 14y ago
      no. just a "honor" murder each week. usually knives though, so does not count.
      - mosselman 14y ago
        You are right, knives don't count in comparing the amount of shootings. Also, Europe is not a Turkish mountain village.
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    The UK did take some action after theirs; after Hungerford, all semi-automatic rifles (centre-ammunition) and shotguns taking four or more rounds were banned, and after Dunblane all cartridge ammunition handguns were banned within Great Britain (except .22 single-shot, which were then banned about 5 years later). The most recent UK shooting of note, Derrick Bird, used a double-barrelled sawn-off shotgun and a .22 (bolt-action) rifle. Would it have been worse if he'd had handguns and semi-automatic rifles? We'll never know, but he did try to acquire another firearm mid-rampage so he clearly felt like he needed more firepower.
  - mpweiher 14y ago
    From that list, I count 16 events in the US and 4 in the EU. Populations are 501M (EU) and 316M (US) (Wikipedia). So 4:1 incidence rate, 6:1 adjusted for population. Very similar to the overall homicide and gun death rates. I'd agree that Scandinavia has a bigger problem (EU would be at 2 without Finland). (Norway is not part of the EU, and I also didn't count the US soldier going on a rampage in Afghanistan).
    - justincormack 14y ago
      Norway is culturally part of Europe, joining the EU does not really change much.
- mpweiher 14y ago
  Gladly! Firearm related death rate, per 100K of population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... US: 9.0 Switzerland: 6.4 Finland: 3.64 Germany: 1.1 UK: 0.25 ...
  - Firehed 14y ago
    Why are we limiting to firearm-related deaths? Within hours of the event in CT, there was another mass attack at a school in China - that one by knife, wounding twenty or so. While guns may have increased the severity of the damage, the lack of a gun did little to stop a similar event from taking place. People that want to do harm to others will find a way, and while there's something to be said for trying to lessen how much damage they can do, that seems to be a poor attempt at treating the symptom rather than the disease. Put another way: let's look at the overall violent crime rates by country instead. Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... US ranks at 4.2/100k I'd also like to point out your selective data pull is very misleading (whether it was intentional or not I don't know; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Of those 9 deaths per 100k, 5.75 are suicides and 0.27 are unintentional; only 2.98 were murders (so we have nearly 75% of our murders by gun, but overall a quite low murder rate compared to over a dozen countries at 30+/100k and four over 50). Also from missing from your quote - the US is #12 in terms of firearm deaths per capita, not #1 as your data implies. The only data that is really relevant to gun control arguments are murders that would not have been possible without a gun and (probably more relevant) accidental gun deaths. Anyone sufficiently determined to kill themselves will find any number of ways, so that's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion.
    - mpweiher 14y ago
      Precisely: the attack in china wounded twenty. As of this writing none were killed. The "severity of the damage" is a highly relevant measure, not something to dismiss. "...poor attempt at treating the symptom rather than the disease". Sorry, the symptoms (i.e. lots of people dead) are the problem here. My data pull was primarily for the countries mentioned earlier, I added some others I find relevant because I have experience living there (never been to Finland). I did not imply the US was #1, the extract was obviously a very short one. The Wikipedia page you cite tells essentially the same story as the Washington Post article: of the OECD countries, the US is by far the most violent, more than 4x more than Germany, for example. Take a look at the countries surrounding the US in the statistic! If you're not embarrassed, you're not paying attention. The "would not have been possible without a gun" argument is specious, as is "anyone sufficiently determined" argument for suicides: you are assuming that anyone with a suicide attempt is sufficiently determined, as is someone wanting to kill someone. This is a fallacy, both logically and from what the data show. Not being able to stop everyone is no excuse for not even trying to stop those that can be stopped (or reducing the damage...heck if no-one gut hurt, would the "rampage" even be a problem??)

by slyn 14y ago

pjscott 14y ago

The United States also has more than 50 times the population of Finland. Normalize!

slyn 14y ago
Clearly you didn't take time to read the aforementioned article at all, or you would've seen the graph that puts the USA at roughly a bit more than triple the assault deaths per 100k vs an eyeball average of the other OECD nations (down from maybe 8-9 times as many in the 80s.) I pulled the above statistic because of the specific context of mass shootings. But hey, at least you got a pithy retort out of it.
justincormack 14y ago
Here is the list http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings... It certainly looks like Scandinavia and the UK might have a problem. Europe as a whole still has fewer than the US for a similar population but it is high. None for China, India or Brazil. So it is not just about normalisation...
- icebraining 14y ago
  Apparently, Brazil had its first just last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting
- mosselman 14y ago
  Please. 'it is high' in Europe'? Playing it fast and loose with the word 'high' if you ask me. Of those mentioned in the list; 6 in the past 25 years are in Europe. 3 shootings, on this list alone, happened in the US in the past 6 months! Most European countries probably haven't had any of this type of thing happen in the past 25+ years.
  - justincormack 14y ago
    Well, its not very statistically significant anyway, but the number outside the US and Europe at all is very small. There are too many in Europe to say they are non existent... sure nothing like the US. Most European countries are very small which was what this thread was about.
  - tylee78 14y ago
    no. just a "honor" murder each week. usually knives though, so does not count.
    - mosselman 14y ago
      You are right, knives don't count in comparing the amount of shootings. Also, Europe is not a Turkish mountain village.
- EliRivers 14y ago
  The UK did take some action after theirs; after Hungerford, all semi-automatic rifles (centre-ammunition) and shotguns taking four or more rounds were banned, and after Dunblane all cartridge ammunition handguns were banned within Great Britain (except .22 single-shot, which were then banned about 5 years later). The most recent UK shooting of note, Derrick Bird, used a double-barrelled sawn-off shotgun and a .22 (bolt-action) rifle. Would it have been worse if he'd had handguns and semi-automatic rifles? We'll never know, but he did try to acquire another firearm mid-rampage so he clearly felt like he needed more firepower.
- mpweiher 14y ago
  From that list, I count 16 events in the US and 4 in the EU. Populations are 501M (EU) and 316M (US) (Wikipedia). So 4:1 incidence rate, 6:1 adjusted for population. Very similar to the overall homicide and gun death rates. I'd agree that Scandinavia has a bigger problem (EU would be at 2 without Finland). (Norway is not part of the EU, and I also didn't count the US soldier going on a rampage in Afghanistan).
  - justincormack 14y ago
    Norway is culturally part of Europe, joining the EU does not really change much.
mpweiher 14y ago
Gladly! Firearm related death rate, per 100K of population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... US: 9.0 Switzerland: 6.4 Finland: 3.64 Germany: 1.1 UK: 0.25 ...
- Firehed 14y ago
  Why are we limiting to firearm-related deaths? Within hours of the event in CT, there was another mass attack at a school in China - that one by knife, wounding twenty or so. While guns may have increased the severity of the damage, the lack of a gun did little to stop a similar event from taking place. People that want to do harm to others will find a way, and while there's something to be said for trying to lessen how much damage they can do, that seems to be a poor attempt at treating the symptom rather than the disease. Put another way: let's look at the overall violent crime rates by country instead. Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... US ranks at 4.2/100k I'd also like to point out your selective data pull is very misleading (whether it was intentional or not I don't know; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Of those 9 deaths per 100k, 5.75 are suicides and 0.27 are unintentional; only 2.98 were murders (so we have nearly 75% of our murders by gun, but overall a quite low murder rate compared to over a dozen countries at 30+/100k and four over 50). Also from missing from your quote - the US is #12 in terms of firearm deaths per capita, not #1 as your data implies. The only data that is really relevant to gun control arguments are murders that would not have been possible without a gun and (probably more relevant) accidental gun deaths. Anyone sufficiently determined to kill themselves will find any number of ways, so that's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion.
  - mpweiher 14y ago
    Precisely: the attack in china wounded twenty. As of this writing none were killed. The "severity of the damage" is a highly relevant measure, not something to dismiss. "...poor attempt at treating the symptom rather than the disease". Sorry, the symptoms (i.e. lots of people dead) are the problem here. My data pull was primarily for the countries mentioned earlier, I added some others I find relevant because I have experience living there (never been to Finland). I did not imply the US was #1, the extract was obviously a very short one. The Wikipedia page you cite tells essentially the same story as the Washington Post article: of the OECD countries, the US is by far the most violent, more than 4x more than Germany, for example. Take a look at the countries surrounding the US in the statistic! If you're not embarrassed, you're not paying attention. The "would not have been possible without a gun" argument is specious, as is "anyone sufficiently determined" argument for suicides: you are assuming that anyone with a suicide attempt is sufficiently determined, as is someone wanting to kill someone. This is a fallacy, both logically and from what the data show. Not being able to stop everyone is no excuse for not even trying to stop those that can be stopped (or reducing the damage...heck if no-one gut hurt, would the "rampage" even be a problem??)