Before 1994 and from 1994 to 2004, the mass shooting rate was comparable. After 2004, it went up significantly (more like after 2006) because the internet became more ingrained in our lives. The way I think to reduce mass shootings is to ban the internet. But I think that’s too authoritarian to implement. So mass shootings will continue to rise due to the rise of the internet and I think that’s fine because I don’t want to ban the internet.
The assault weapon ban didn’t reduce the masa shooting rate
Posts
Total:
49
Semi-automatic weapons are, indeed, more dangerous in a so-called "mass shooting" context. The reason why is obvious to anyone who has ever fired a fully automatic weapon. Full auto weapons are terribly inefficient, waste ammunition and lend themselves to wasted ammunition.
-->
@coal
Statistically, banning semi automatic guns has not reduced the mass shooting rate. Efficiency is irrelevant.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are talking to a guy who would get rid of essentially all gun regulation in this country.
-->
@coal
@TheUnderdog
Hey, it's just a statistically tiny percentage of globally irrelevant dead kids.
What's all the fuss about.
Just like we see Ukrainian/Russian mutual slaughter as nothing more than Internet entertainment.
Bang Bang you're dead.....So what.
Have the gun, feel the gun, go masturbate.
Satirical but true.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Isn't Gerry Nadler that is advocating owning a gun to be raised to 21? And didn't he turn into a stammer wreck when someone asked, " does this mean we will be raising the age of conscription to the age of 21 too"?
All these bans miss the points. Banning free speech because it can lead to radicalization, banning guns because they can kill. I am honestly not sure how the conservatives went from being reactionaries in the 80s to liberals being the antifreedom reactionaries now
-->
@Incel-chud
I know.
And the Orange Clown wanted to ban Jonny Foreigner from coming to join a Nation of Jonny Foreigners.
What a killjoy hey?
-->
@zedvictor4
No, he actually advocated for increasing legal immigrants. He thought it was too tough to immigrate to the United States legally. He looked to reduce illegal immigration not reduce total or legal immigration.
-->
@Incel-chud
I think he was talking about strippers on Einstein visa's.
-->
@Incel-chud
Q. What is the definition of a legal immigrant.
A. A rich one, that looks the part.
-->
@zedvictor4
A future First Lady?
The most commonly used weapon in mass shootings is the semi auto pistol. They have high capacity magazines and are easily concealed. An assault weapons ban doesn’t include that type of firearm.
The “assault weapon” ban is largely symbolic. It outlaws weaponry based upon their appearance rather than their lethality. It makes semi auto rifles with pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors illegal, while semi auto rifles without those features can still be easily attained.
-->
@cristo71
The “assault weapon” ban is largely symbolic
That is what's so sick and disgusting about it. While they are trying to ramp up symbolic laws, they're ignoring solutions that could make an actual difference in avoiding so many more mass casualty events.
I do kinda worry though, because even if they weren't sick enough to have the blood of children on their hands from the next massacre, probably while patting themselves on the back for a symbolic laws they knew for a fact would be ineffective. If they did actually care about children, these individuals are so sick that they would actually start suggesting solutions that were repressive. It's their go to. Not "how can we mitigate the risk of mass casualty events in an ethical way", but they seem to ask themselves "how can we mitigate the risk of a mass casualty events if we treated the civilian population as subjects and disregarded giving a shit about their rights".
People aren't normally that sick in the head, but it's what makes me think this is evidence not only of a God, but that the God who created this world is not the perfect creator God who came before him. He is yaldabaoth.
God is great folks
-->
@ILikePie5
Which one?
Norway has by far the highest mass shooting rate per capita out of any country, and it has gun laws that are stricter than in the US. You can only legally get a gun for hunting or for sport shooting. Only 9% of the population owns a gun, but in the US there are more guns than people.
-->
@Stephen
" does this mean we will be raising the age of conscription to the age of 21 too"?
fantastic idea
-->
@Kritikal
Norway has by far the highest mass shooting rate per capita out of any country, and it has gun laws that are stricter than in the US. You can only legally get a gun for hunting or for sport shooting. Only 9% of the population owns a gun, but in the US there are more guns than people.
there have been over 246 public shootings in the usa this year [2022]
there have been 0 mass shootings in norway for the past 10 years
Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
- United States — 0.058
- Albania — 0
- Austria — 0
- Belgium — 0
- Czech Republic — 0
- Finland — 0
- France — 0
- Germany — 0
- Italy — 0
- Macedonia — 0
- Netherlands — 0
- Norway — 0
- Russia — 0
- Serbia — 0
- Slovakia — 0
- Switzerland — 0
- United Kingdom — 0
-->
@3RU7AL
The article that you are referring to also includes the CRPC data, which would confirm my point on Norway, but then it gives several reasons the data that you presented is better than the CRPC data.
Average (Mean) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
- 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
Article objections to the CRPC report
1. The CRPC report only includes high-ranking countries, giving the false impression that the US has a lower comparative death rate. (would not change position of US on the list)
2. Average deaths per capita can have a “statistically oversized influence” Norway specifically only had one mass shooting of 69 people in the time frame.
3. It gives an example of the method applying to the 9/11 attacks
An easy, though arguably insensitive, way to illustrate the shortcomings of this approach is to apply it to the 9/11 attacks, which killed 2,977 people in the United States on a single day in 2001. Running that data through the CRPC formula yields the following statistic: Plane hijackings by terrorists caused an average of 297.7 deaths per year in the U.S. from 2001-2010. This is mathematically accurate, but it gives a badly distorted impression of what actually happened during those ten years.
4. It says that population size warps death per capita for smaller countries
Response
Excluding low-ranking countries definitely could be a valid concern. That being said, it does not matter because it has been disclosed, so we can avoid any false impressions. It is also an irrelevant concern regarding this issue because we only care about Norway as relative to the US, and not any other country on the list.
Using deaths per capita does not create a statistically oversized influence. This would only be possible if the sample sizes were small, but even ‘small’ countries have millions of people. Sure, Norway only had one mass shooting in the time frame, but the population of the US is about 6125% that of Norway. Assuming Norway were to have the population of the US, they would have about 61 shootings in the time frame — and spread out roughly evenly across years. Similarly, if the US had a population the size of Norway, it would only have 0-1 shootings within the time frame.
I see nothing wrong with the example given on 9/11. Especially when looking at the overall impact of gun policies, we should care more about the overall impact than the year by year. Any way you phrase it the same amount of people die.
When it says population sizes ‘warp’ the death per capita, this is a given and intentional. Per capita corrects for population sizes, and if we did not do this, then large countries would always have the most mass shootings, which is technically true numerically, but it does not account for population size. I definitely could be missing something here, but this point just seems invalid.
My objections to the alternative report
My main issue with the data here is that it tests for propensity, meaning the amount of deaths from mass shootings that are likely to occur in any year. Larger countries will always have numerically more deaths, but not necessarily proportionally so. This translates into how likely a shooting is to occur in any year, but the deaths say the same. This means that major mass shootings are discounted simply because they happened in a small country with numerically fewer shootings.
The report also gives the false impression that other countries have no propensity for mass shootings. This is, of course, false, it is just that smaller European countries with smaller populations will have shootings with longer intervals as they have less people.
-->
@Kritikal
which would confirm my point on Norway
how many mass shootings has norway reported since 2011 ?
-->
@coal
An armed society is a polite society
-->
@Kritikal
norway has an estimated population of 5 million
this is comparable to states like wisconsin, colorado, minnesota, south carolina, and alabama [**]
wisconsin reports 6 mass shootings this year [2022]
colorado reports 6 mass shootings this year [2022]
minnesota reports 3 mass shootings this year [2022]
south carolina reports 12 mass shootings this year [2022]
alabama reports 9 mass shootings this year [2022]
-->
@sadolite
An armed society is a polite society
false
Non-americans have no say in gun policy for the average American. If you don't feel safe visiting the US then I would suggest not visiting the US. I have been born raised and continue to live in what's called a red state and in the 50 plus years I've been alive I've never been involved in an incident where there was a gun involved. I also have owned or shot guns since I was 6 years old.
-->
@3RU7AL
Saying false proves nothing and says nothing. True. Now because I said true that makes me right.
-->
@3RU7AL
There are more individual mass shootings, but most of these are small. For example the list in the wikipedia article that you provided includes shootings where only one person died, and in at least one case not a single person actually died. I don't think we can weigh a shooting where only a few people died the same as one where upwards of 50 died. The fact is that shootings tend to be less fatal in the US, often times because they are abruptly stopped by someone else with a gun.
-->
@Kritikal
often times because they are abruptly stopped by someone else with a gun.
more specifically a police officer with a gun
-->
@3RU7AL
Citizens have used guns to stop both mass shootings and crime in general[1]. With mass shootings the example that comes to mind is the church shooting in texas that was stopped by an armed person[2]. Furthermore, sometimes the police are actually obstacles and prolong shootings. For example in the recent Uvlade shooting, police officers actively prevented armed parents from saving their children instead opting to stand out of the school doing nothing [3] while children were being shot.
[1]https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/new-cases-armed-citizens-stopping-criminals-february
-->
@Kritikal
Citizens have used guns to stop both mass shootings and crime in general[1].
10 out of 345 is not a great batting average