Why does Finland Lead the World in Mass Shootings?

Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye

 

Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.

holy toledo, mexico has 3 times as many murders than the rest of the nations on the list.

Originally posted by AtticusRye
reply to post by redrose123

 

Good points ... another thing I notice is that 7 of the top 10 countries have more psychiatrists than average. I wish they had a column that showed % of population on psyhoactive medication, but this may say almost as much.

Actually, might not be that far from the truth! When checking up on the incidents mentioned above it turned out that the shooter were on SSRI medication...in every case.
Also read that 300.000 Finns are on SSRI medication..wich is a high number compared to a total population of roughly 5.000.000.
Here's a link to a list of shootings and other acts of violence where SSRI and other drugs has played an ugly role.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye

 

Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.

holy toledo, mexico has 3 times as many murders than the rest of the nations on the list.

But Mexico also has less than 250 violent assaults per 100,000 (as with the US and Canada) ... while the UK has more than 700 violent assaults per 100,000.

So the question to you ATSers ... would you rather live in:

(a) a place where you had a 1-in-6,000 chance of being murdered in the next year and a 1-in-500 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag, or, (Mexico)

(b) a place where you had a 1-in-80,000 chance of being murdered in the next year BUT a 1-in-150 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag (UK)

???

I don't think there's a right/wrong answer. Probably just personal preference.

Good tread OP s&f I have wondered about those numbers for a while now. I think you are right many people here do not seem to grasp what per capita really means. Or they are willfully ignoring the implications.

Those stats are misleading and the title of your thread is off. Finland doesn't lead the world in mass shootings, it has had three, according to the website you linked, in 5 years with a recorded 19 fatalities. That doesn't mesh with your claim in the least. Also, Finland has one of the highest civilian ownership of firearms in the world for the population size.

www.gunpolicy.org...

You asked about Austria. I am not sure how they rate something like the gun laws but using their source, the laws seem relatively the same between Austria and Finland with Austria having about 3 million more people.

www.gunpolicy.org...

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Austria is 2,500,000
The rate of private gun ownership in Austria is 30.4 firearms per 100 people
In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Austria ranked at No. 31
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Austria ranked at No. 14
----------------------
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Finland is 2,400,000
The rate of private gun ownership in Finland is 45.7 firearms per 100 people
In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Finland ranked at No. 33
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Finland ranked at No. 4

reply to post by coyotepoet


You don't know very much about Canada eh? We don't have strict gun bans, in fact, it's rather easy to purchase firearms. We don't have the free for all that is allowed in the US but it isn't hard to get guns legally in Canada.

Originally posted by AtticusRye

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye

 

Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.

holy toledo, mexico has 3 times as many murders than the rest of the nations on the list.

But Mexico also has less than 250 violent assaults per 100,000 (as with the US and Canada) ... while the UK has more than 700 violent assaults per 100,000.

So the question to you ATSers ... would you rather live in:

(a) a place where you had a 1-in-6,000 chance of being murdered in the next year and a 1-in-500 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag, or, (Mexico)

(b) a place where you had a 1-in-80,000 chance of being murdered in the next year BUT a 1-in-150 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag (UK)

???

I don't think there's a right/wrong answer. Probably just personal preference.

edit on 2-1-2013 by AtticusRye because: (no reason given)

Question, In either country can I get these colostemy bags in different colors to match my shirt? If so, then I choose that one..

reply to post by AtticusRye


In Mexico violent assaults, theft, and most things that are short of murder rarely go reported the police are corrupt to the core. Three years ago I was robbed by a cop there. What is the point of reporting things?

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Those stats are misleading and the title of your thread is off.

If the stats are misleading the onus is yours to demonstrate how, not to just scream "MISLEADING!" and storm off.

However, you are correct that the title of my thread is off. It should read:

"Norway leads the 34 most industrialized nations in mass shooting fatalities."

That would be a correct title, because, it is: (a) Norway, (b) the OECD nations, not the world, (c) fatalities, not just mass shootings.

(However, in my OP I stated I was excepting Norway since theirs was a one-off event.)

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by AtticusRye

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by AtticusRye

 

Exactly. Look at the first two colums, total rampage shooting fatalities and population. Then, for grins, check out the homicides per 100,000 column.

holy toledo, mexico has 3 times as many murders than the rest of the nations on the list.

But Mexico also has less than 250 violent assaults per 100,000 (as with the US and Canada) ... while the UK has more than 700 violent assaults per 100,000.

So the question to you ATSers ... would you rather live in:

(a) a place where you had a 1-in-6,000 chance of being murdered in the next year and a 1-in-500 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag, or, (Mexico)

(b) a place where you had a 1-in-80,000 chance of being murdered in the next year BUT a 1-in-150 chance of being beaten to within an inch of your life so you spent the next 6 months in a wheelchair attached to a colostomy bag (UK)

???

I don't think there's a right/wrong answer. Probably just personal preference.

edit on 2-1-2013 by AtticusRye because: (no reason given)

Question, In either country can I get these colostemy bags in different colors to match my shirt? If so, then I choose that one..

it's spelled "colostomy", Yank

(and English isn't even my native language )

Let me know if you need additional help with maths, grammar or any other subjects. The world is here to help.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
"per capita" stats are kind of weird...

see... when a country like finland has 5,000,000 people, 2 mass shootings is actually more than a country that has 10 mass shootings BUT it has 300.000.000 people.

It doesnt really make finland worse that THAT country with 300.000.000 ppl... is that those 10 mass shootings that actually killed more, were diluted in the total population. Still like I said, it doesnt make it worse.

If you fart in a restaurant with 2 people... they all hear it, give you the looks and you never go back to that restaurant again. If you do it at walmart on a black friday, who cares? You're only one fart in 200. [/quote

Yes, but if you fart in America (fart/mass shootings) the media magnifies it by 500%, so in effect, it cancels the effect

Originally posted by AtticusRye

If the stats are misleading the onus is yours to demonstrate how, not to just scream "MISLEADING!" and storm off.

I did...

it has had three, according to the website you linked, in 5 years with a recorded 19 fatalities.

You made the outlandish claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

And...

"Norway leads the 34 most industrialized nations in mass shooting fatalities."

That would be a correct title, because, it is: (a) Norway, (b) the OECD nations, not the world, (c) fatalities, not just mass shootings.

Is wrong as well. According to your link again...

Fatalities...
USA 186
Norway 77
Germany 25
Finland 19

That offer of help extends to you as well. Reading comprehension isn't easy, I understand.

it's spelled "colostomy", Yank

(and English isn't even my native language

)

Thanks! that musta been why I had a redline underneath it!

Let me know if you need additional help with maths, grammar or any other subjects. The world is here to help.

edit on 2-1-2013 by AtticusRye because: (no reason given)

I need to know if I can get those 'colostemy' bags in different colors. Or perhaps a chrome one.. I would definately (look! another red line) like a chrome one..

I'll help you too since you were so kind to help me with my spelling.. You can't help me with 'maths' but you could help me with my 'math'. There see!? Now we're both stupid!

Originally posted by GAOTU789

Originally posted by AtticusRye

If the stats are misleading the onus is yours to demonstrate how, not to just scream "MISLEADING!" and storm off.

I did...

it has had three, according to the website you linked, in 5 years with a recorded 19 fatalities.

You made the outlandish claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

And...

"Norway leads the 34 most industrialized nations in mass shooting fatalities."

That would be a correct title, because, it is: (a) Norway, (b) the OECD nations, not the world, (c) fatalities, not just mass shootings.

Is wrong as well. According to your link again...

Fatalities...
USA 186
Norway 77
Germany 25
Finland 19

That offer of help extends to you as well. Reading comprehension isn't easy, I understand.

edit on 2-1-2013 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)

Again, by your logic, the US leads the table in Olympic gold medals, Ph.D.'s, billionaires, millionaires, attractive people, births, deaths ... all because it has the largest population.

People don't talk in these terms. In comparing two sets with different sizes, percentile measurements are used. This is how it is, and how it has always been. The more you argue about this basic fact of 011 level maths the more truly silly it seems.

The fact remains, between 2008-2012, you were roughly 7X more likely to be killed in a mass shooting in Finland than in the US and roughly 16X more likely to be killed in a mass shooting in Finland than in Canada.

I hope you are able to enhance the learning opportunities available to you and engage as a more proactive, learned and less sophistic interlocutor in the future. I wish you all the best in your future efforts and attempts.

Originally posted by foodstamp

I'll help you too since you were so kind to help me with my spelling.. You can't help me with 'maths' but you could help me with my 'math'. There see!? Now we're both stupid!

No, still just you. The word "math" is a North American colloquialism. Those of us in the rest of the world use the word "maths." (www.dailywritingtips.com...) Try not to be so provincial. There is a whole planet outside your little suburban American cul-de-sac next to the Wal-Mart.

I love how even the Canadian dog has a gun and they are number 10.

reply to post by AtticusRye




So you won't bother to atcually debtae the subject but instead make backhand insulkts insteaed.

Here's a little tip for you, when you use a source and make outrageous claims, you should take just a little time to read the website further past the one page you read.

Again, your source to dispute your silly claims of basic maths[sic]...

In the tabled data you aggregate fatalities over 5 years and then present them “per 1,000,000.” This seems very clumsy.

It is clumsy, but is presented in this format for easier comprehension. Fatal rampage shootings are such rare events that reordering the table on a yearly basis would result in wild swings in national rankings, making international comparisons meaningless. Instead, the RSI looks at the most recent five year period. Fatalities are credited “per 1,000,000″ to minimize the number of decimal spots needed in the presentation of national totals.

I suppose that easier comprehension was aimed at folks like yourself.

Here's a little better representation based on the commonly accepted per capita number of per 100,000

Finland 2.84
USA 16.94

Based on the figures given by your website for fatalities and population numbers.

So what was that you were saying about basic maths?

Anyway, nice talking to ya and thanks for the well wishes.

Why does each state in the US have different homicide numbers each year?!

Why is it if you picked certain states to total the pop to 60M you could show that the US is safer than the UK but then show 1 city in the US that is more dangerous than the UK?

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by AtticusRye

 

So you won't bother to atcually debtae the subject but instead make backhand insulkts insteaed.

Here's a little tip for you, when you use a source and make outrageous claims, you should take just a little time to read the website further past the one page you read.

Again, your source to dispute your silly claims of basic maths[sic]...

In the tabled data you aggregate fatalities over 5 years and then present them “per 1,000,000.” This seems very clumsy.

It is clumsy, but is presented in this format for easier comprehension. Fatal rampage shootings are such rare events that reordering the table on a yearly basis would result in wild swings in national rankings, making international comparisons meaningless. Instead, the RSI looks at the most recent five year period. Fatalities are credited “per 1,000,000″ to minimize the number of decimal spots needed in the presentation of national totals.

I suppose that easier comprehension was aimed at folks like yourself.

Here's a little better representation based on the commonly accepted per capita number of per 100,000

Finland 2.84
USA 16.94

Based on the figures given by your website for fatalities and population numbers.

So what was that you were saying about basic maths?

Anyway, nice talking to ya and thanks for the well wishes.

Wow, you should have stopped while you were only a bit behind. One million contains 10 units of 100,000. So, as we learned in primary school, dividing by ten results in ...

Finland ... 00.350
USA ... 00.059

Not the bizarre figures you arrived at.

Anyway, please post more, GAOTU789! Your creative understanding of 011 mathematics is a riot and I haven't had this much fun on ATS in awhile.

reply to post by AtticusRye


Don't you go using big words with me dummy! Lol

Those statistics are interesting however….

The only reason Norway is at the top is because of the 2011 massacre that probably accounts for about 70 of those deaths. Finland likewise had a “freak” event following a shooting in a school in late 2007 that I would guess accounts for most of its deaths. I done another check and discovered that Belgium had a similar “freak” even in which 7 were killed. It just so happens that the time frame in which these statistics is drawn from there have happened to be “one off” mass shootings in Scandinavian states, the same can be said of Slovakia, all 8 of those deaths came from a single mass shooting and as such the statistics don’t really represent the reality. So it’s not that Finland leads to word as such it’s just due to the time frame in which the statistics are taken.

Therefore if you don’t account for these “one off” events then that actually puts America at number 2 in that chart beaten only by Israel. When you discount these “on off” events then these statistics make America look very bad indeed, look at the number actual deaths, it’s at least double that of any other state, that is terrible and clearly shows that there is something wrong somewhere with America. It clearly shows America has a very big problem with mass shootings.

In any case these statistics are not all that grate, I am surprised for example that Russia and China don’t feature a toll on that list and I fail to see what the number of world cup appearances has to do with mass shootings. That coupled with the narrow time frame leads me to believe that these statistics are first of all unreliable and I also think they have been created to make America look better than it really is.