Mixing
Does America not lead the world in mass shootings?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
According to an OpEd in the NY Post by John Lott and Michael Weisser that cites a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center, America doesn't lead the world in mass shootings.
"Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings,
the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass
public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia
all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public
shootings than the United States." (bolding mine)
I don't think it would be a particularly controversial claim to say that the US has lower gun violence rates (including lower mass shooting rates) than impoverished countries. However, the claim that Norway, Finland and Switzerland have higher mass shooting rates than the US leaves me skeptical due to the large disparity in overall gun violence.
Does the US not have a higher mass shooting rate than Norway, Finland or Switzerland? Do the above numbers, as presented, accurately depict the reality of mass shootings?
united-states guns terrorism violence statistics
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
According to an OpEd in the NY Post by John Lott and Michael Weisser that cites a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center, America doesn't lead the world in mass shootings.
"Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings,
the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass
public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia
all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public
shootings than the United States." (bolding mine)
I don't think it would be a particularly controversial claim to say that the US has lower gun violence rates (including lower mass shooting rates) than impoverished countries. However, the claim that Norway, Finland and Switzerland have higher mass shooting rates than the US leaves me skeptical due to the large disparity in overall gun violence.
Does the US not have a higher mass shooting rate than Norway, Finland or Switzerland? Do the above numbers, as presented, accurately depict the reality of mass shootings?
united-states guns terrorism violence statistics
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
Does your source precise a time frame and if what's counted is the number of mass events or the number of casualties?
– Evargalo
5 hours ago
1
Definite ad hominem, but hard to argue that Lott is in any way an unbiased source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott . (As pointed out in the op ed, he is both one of the article's authors and the president of the CPRC, which is emphatically pro-gun.)
– jdunlop
4 hours ago
@jdunlop: On the one hand, Switzerland has a ton of guns so the report isn't necessarily pro-gun. On the other hand, Switzerland also has a very low homicide rate so the report may be fudging some definitions.
– Giter
3 hours ago
@Giter - yeah. I didn't dig enough to get a well-sourced answer, but wikipedia says the US has 4.62 gun homicides per 100k population per annum, while Switzerland's total (any form of homicide, as in the post you linked) is 0.5 homicides per same population per annum. So something's definitely amiss.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
@Giter Also, from the article: "How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings." It looks pro-gun to me.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
According to an OpEd in the NY Post by John Lott and Michael Weisser that cites a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center, America doesn't lead the world in mass shootings.
"Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings,
the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass
public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia
all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public
shootings than the United States." (bolding mine)
I don't think it would be a particularly controversial claim to say that the US has lower gun violence rates (including lower mass shooting rates) than impoverished countries. However, the claim that Norway, Finland and Switzerland have higher mass shooting rates than the US leaves me skeptical due to the large disparity in overall gun violence.
Does the US not have a higher mass shooting rate than Norway, Finland or Switzerland? Do the above numbers, as presented, accurately depict the reality of mass shootings?
united-states guns terrorism violence statistics
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
According to an OpEd in the NY Post by John Lott and Michael Weisser that cites a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center, America doesn't lead the world in mass shootings.
"Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings,
the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass
public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia
all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public
shootings than the United States." (bolding mine)
I don't think it would be a particularly controversial claim to say that the US has lower gun violence rates (including lower mass shooting rates) than impoverished countries. However, the claim that Norway, Finland and Switzerland have higher mass shooting rates than the US leaves me skeptical due to the large disparity in overall gun violence.
Does the US not have a higher mass shooting rate than Norway, Finland or Switzerland? Do the above numbers, as presented, accurately depict the reality of mass shootings?
united-states guns terrorism violence statistics
united-states guns terrorism violence statistics
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
edited 5 hours ago
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
asked 5 hours ago
James G.
497416
497416
Does your source precise a time frame and if what's counted is the number of mass events or the number of casualties?
– Evargalo
5 hours ago
1
Definite ad hominem, but hard to argue that Lott is in any way an unbiased source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott . (As pointed out in the op ed, he is both one of the article's authors and the president of the CPRC, which is emphatically pro-gun.)
– jdunlop
4 hours ago
@jdunlop: On the one hand, Switzerland has a ton of guns so the report isn't necessarily pro-gun. On the other hand, Switzerland also has a very low homicide rate so the report may be fudging some definitions.
– Giter
3 hours ago
@Giter - yeah. I didn't dig enough to get a well-sourced answer, but wikipedia says the US has 4.62 gun homicides per 100k population per annum, while Switzerland's total (any form of homicide, as in the post you linked) is 0.5 homicides per same population per annum. So something's definitely amiss.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
@Giter Also, from the article: "How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings." It looks pro-gun to me.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Does your source precise a time frame and if what's counted is the number of mass events or the number of casualties?
– Evargalo
5 hours ago
1
Definite ad hominem, but hard to argue that Lott is in any way an unbiased source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott . (As pointed out in the op ed, he is both one of the article's authors and the president of the CPRC, which is emphatically pro-gun.)
– jdunlop
4 hours ago
@jdunlop: On the one hand, Switzerland has a ton of guns so the report isn't necessarily pro-gun. On the other hand, Switzerland also has a very low homicide rate so the report may be fudging some definitions.
– Giter
3 hours ago
@Giter - yeah. I didn't dig enough to get a well-sourced answer, but wikipedia says the US has 4.62 gun homicides per 100k population per annum, while Switzerland's total (any form of homicide, as in the post you linked) is 0.5 homicides per same population per annum. So something's definitely amiss.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
@Giter Also, from the article: "How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings." It looks pro-gun to me.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
Does your source precise a time frame and if what's counted is the number of mass events or the number of casualties?
– Evargalo
5 hours ago
Does your source precise a time frame and if what's counted is the number of mass events or the number of casualties?
– Evargalo
5 hours ago
1
1
Definite ad hominem, but hard to argue that Lott is in any way an unbiased source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott . (As pointed out in the op ed, he is both one of the article's authors and the president of the CPRC, which is emphatically pro-gun.)
– jdunlop
4 hours ago
Definite ad hominem, but hard to argue that Lott is in any way an unbiased source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott . (As pointed out in the op ed, he is both one of the article's authors and the president of the CPRC, which is emphatically pro-gun.)
– jdunlop
4 hours ago
@jdunlop: On the one hand, Switzerland has a ton of guns so the report isn't necessarily pro-gun. On the other hand, Switzerland also has a very low homicide rate so the report may be fudging some definitions.
– Giter
3 hours ago
@jdunlop: On the one hand, Switzerland has a ton of guns so the report isn't necessarily pro-gun. On the other hand, Switzerland also has a very low homicide rate so the report may be fudging some definitions.
– Giter
3 hours ago
@Giter - yeah. I didn't dig enough to get a well-sourced answer, but wikipedia says the US has 4.62 gun homicides per 100k population per annum, while Switzerland's total (any form of homicide, as in the post you linked) is 0.5 homicides per same population per annum. So something's definitely amiss.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
@Giter - yeah. I didn't dig enough to get a well-sourced answer, but wikipedia says the US has 4.62 gun homicides per 100k population per annum, while Switzerland's total (any form of homicide, as in the post you linked) is 0.5 homicides per same population per annum. So something's definitely amiss.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
@Giter Also, from the article: "How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings." It looks pro-gun to me.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
@Giter Also, from the article: "How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings." It looks pro-gun to me.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
As discussed in this answer and this answer when you use a term like "mass shooting", your results become particularly sensitive to your definition. Additionally, results will be sensitive to search strategy, since cases are assembled from searches for news reports. Because the results are sensitive to definition and search strategy, they are susceptible to bias.
The authors of the OpEd are Michael Weisser, aka, "Mike the Gun Guy", and John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center an organization that has published such titles as: "The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies", and "More Guns, Less Crime".
The study the OpEd references was conducted by the same Crime Prevention Research Center, was not peer reviewed, and does not have a coherent methods section with a well defined search strategy or case definition. To me, it reads like an undergraduate student's report or a blog post, not an academic study. Most of the section on definitions and search strategy is a discussion of perceived problems with a peer reviewed study by Adam Lankford that is beyond the scope of this claim. They start with events listed in the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database, and then add events found using a defined nexis search and an undefined "web search", which included wikipedia.
While it is possible the claim is true, the evidence used to support it is not peer reviewed or thoroughly described, and it is conducted by a biased source.
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
As discussed in this answer and this answer when you use a term like "mass shooting", your results become particularly sensitive to your definition. Additionally, results will be sensitive to search strategy, since cases are assembled from searches for news reports. Because the results are sensitive to definition and search strategy, they are susceptible to bias.
The authors of the OpEd are Michael Weisser, aka, "Mike the Gun Guy", and John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center an organization that has published such titles as: "The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies", and "More Guns, Less Crime".
The study the OpEd references was conducted by the same Crime Prevention Research Center, was not peer reviewed, and does not have a coherent methods section with a well defined search strategy or case definition. To me, it reads like an undergraduate student's report or a blog post, not an academic study. Most of the section on definitions and search strategy is a discussion of perceived problems with a peer reviewed study by Adam Lankford that is beyond the scope of this claim. They start with events listed in the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database, and then add events found using a defined nexis search and an undefined "web search", which included wikipedia.
While it is possible the claim is true, the evidence used to support it is not peer reviewed or thoroughly described, and it is conducted by a biased source.
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
As discussed in this answer and this answer when you use a term like "mass shooting", your results become particularly sensitive to your definition. Additionally, results will be sensitive to search strategy, since cases are assembled from searches for news reports. Because the results are sensitive to definition and search strategy, they are susceptible to bias.
The authors of the OpEd are Michael Weisser, aka, "Mike the Gun Guy", and John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center an organization that has published such titles as: "The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies", and "More Guns, Less Crime".
The study the OpEd references was conducted by the same Crime Prevention Research Center, was not peer reviewed, and does not have a coherent methods section with a well defined search strategy or case definition. To me, it reads like an undergraduate student's report or a blog post, not an academic study. Most of the section on definitions and search strategy is a discussion of perceived problems with a peer reviewed study by Adam Lankford that is beyond the scope of this claim. They start with events listed in the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database, and then add events found using a defined nexis search and an undefined "web search", which included wikipedia.
While it is possible the claim is true, the evidence used to support it is not peer reviewed or thoroughly described, and it is conducted by a biased source.
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
As discussed in this answer and this answer when you use a term like "mass shooting", your results become particularly sensitive to your definition. Additionally, results will be sensitive to search strategy, since cases are assembled from searches for news reports. Because the results are sensitive to definition and search strategy, they are susceptible to bias.
The authors of the OpEd are Michael Weisser, aka, "Mike the Gun Guy", and John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center an organization that has published such titles as: "The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies", and "More Guns, Less Crime".
The study the OpEd references was conducted by the same Crime Prevention Research Center, was not peer reviewed, and does not have a coherent methods section with a well defined search strategy or case definition. To me, it reads like an undergraduate student's report or a blog post, not an academic study. Most of the section on definitions and search strategy is a discussion of perceived problems with a peer reviewed study by Adam Lankford that is beyond the scope of this claim. They start with events listed in the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database, and then add events found using a defined nexis search and an undefined "web search", which included wikipedia.
While it is possible the claim is true, the evidence used to support it is not peer reviewed or thoroughly described, and it is conducted by a biased source.
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
As discussed in this answer and this answer when you use a term like "mass shooting", your results become particularly sensitive to your definition. Additionally, results will be sensitive to search strategy, since cases are assembled from searches for news reports. Because the results are sensitive to definition and search strategy, they are susceptible to bias.
The authors of the OpEd are Michael Weisser, aka, "Mike the Gun Guy", and John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center an organization that has published such titles as: "The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies", and "More Guns, Less Crime".
The study the OpEd references was conducted by the same Crime Prevention Research Center, was not peer reviewed, and does not have a coherent methods section with a well defined search strategy or case definition. To me, it reads like an undergraduate student's report or a blog post, not an academic study. Most of the section on definitions and search strategy is a discussion of perceived problems with a peer reviewed study by Adam Lankford that is beyond the scope of this claim. They start with events listed in the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database, and then add events found using a defined nexis search and an undefined "web search", which included wikipedia.
While it is possible the claim is true, the evidence used to support it is not peer reviewed or thoroughly described, and it is conducted by a biased source.
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
answered 1 hour ago
De Novo
492111
492111
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Does your source precise a time frame and if what's counted is the number of mass events or the number of casualties?
– Evargalo
5 hours ago
1
Definite ad hominem, but hard to argue that Lott is in any way an unbiased source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott . (As pointed out in the op ed, he is both one of the article's authors and the president of the CPRC, which is emphatically pro-gun.)
– jdunlop
4 hours ago
@jdunlop: On the one hand, Switzerland has a ton of guns so the report isn't necessarily pro-gun. On the other hand, Switzerland also has a very low homicide rate so the report may be fudging some definitions.
– Giter
3 hours ago
@Giter - yeah. I didn't dig enough to get a well-sourced answer, but wikipedia says the US has 4.62 gun homicides per 100k population per annum, while Switzerland's total (any form of homicide, as in the post you linked) is 0.5 homicides per same population per annum. So something's definitely amiss.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago
@Giter Also, from the article: "How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings." It looks pro-gun to me.
– jdunlop
2 hours ago