Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason

a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you give me an example of 'discussing' data (other than merely listing it) that isn't in some way analysis?

My reference above was meant to imply that rather than try and weight the myriad of qualifiers and contexts and considerations, you merely look at the drop in gun deaths as a single determinant to the efficacy of gun regulation. It is only invalidated if one can prove that there was no correlation, and since that is practically impossible, we are only left with the ability to utilize the data in a general sense for making general observations.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you give me an example of 'discussing' data (other than merely listing it) that isn't in some way analysis?

My reference above was meant to imply that rather than try and weight the myriad of qualifiers and contexts and considerations, you merely look at the drop in gun deaths as a single determinant to the efficacy of gun regulation. It is only invalidated if one can prove that there was no correlation, and since that is practically impossible, we are only left with the ability to utilize the data in a general sense for making general observations.

And I assert that measuring "gun deaths" as its own metric, rather than "murder rate", is pointless and purposefully skewing facts.

It doesn't take a genius to observe that when guns are illegal, they will not be used as a method of killing someone. What does that say about the other methods of killing someone, though?

Ill also add: the majority of "gun deaths" in the US are suicide. In most western nations, suicide is not illegal. And if you examine suicides, almost 43% of all gun deaths in the US are veterans killing themselves.

The low hanging fruit isn't "sane gun laws". The low hanging fruit is what we do to our young men in unjust wars, and the effect it has on them mentally. If you want to make the biggest impact to "gun deaths" in the US, address that before looking to invoke more laws.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I would hope you would have some reasoning or evidence as to why you would make that claim, rather than just assuming we are going to take your word for it as lord high statistician of ATS. As I explained to TerminalVelocity, unless you are willing to actually put in the though/effort/research to demonstrate why the data is invalid (rather than spout platitudes in lieu of an actual reasoned argument) you are countering that data with opinion. Thankfully most of the world is built and functions on sound science, reason, and evidence, rather than opinion.

Are you done being demeaning for the sake of being demeaning?

The bottom line is that, when you compare countries with vastly different constitutionally protected rights, vastly different ways that they gained their independence from Britain (obviously citing Australia), vastly different histories of their citizens' relationships with firearms, vastly different population sizes (we only have 13.39 times the population of Australia..."only"), etc., etc., etc., then you are going to come up with "solutions" and "fixes" that might sound good on ideologically colored paper, but won't translate to real life.


So, I can show you all of the data and information on banana farming, but if you work on a strawberry farm, the information will be irrelevant and won't translate across the differences. If you determine this to be "opinion" versus "sound science, reason, and evidence," so be it. If you are already at that place, nothing that I say or show or...yes...opine on will alter your view.

Secondly, whether I am a 'genius on the topic and mindset of the average gun owner' is your opinion and irrelevant to this argument.

Look past the ad hominem attack and realize that I could have said it this way: You don't appear to fully grasp the concept that you are opining on yourself.

But, yes, let's attack the method of comment and not the meat of the point.

Here, peruse thisand tell me that massacres and murders ceased in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre. See, here's the problem with rational discussion and logic--you can neither prove nor disprove that if the ban on firearms had never occurred that there would be more, less, or the same amount of death and injuries since then. But the reality is that since then, there have been many massacres with all types of weapons--including firearms--and all manner of motives and methods.

Pretending that the ban on guns has resulted in mass shootings disappearing--well, your quote is, "as of yet stopped in fact"--is utter bullsh*t. In fact, they did not.

And you want to lecture me on research and data? You want to lecture me on "lack[ing] the evidence to back up [my] argument?"

Here's the simple reality of this discussion: I have backed up my argument ad nauseam on this site numerous times in multiple threads. I don't find this particular strain of discussion with you worthy of my time to do it all over. If you want to equate that as an inability to do so, that's your own assessment that I'm not interested in working to change.

Sincerely and with love,

Lord High Statistician of ATS

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If anyone wants to actually evaluate the data, its available. What becomes readily apparent:

- its impossible to get a same/same comparison. For one, we include suicide in our homocide stats
- veteran suicides make up the bulk of all gun related deaths
- actual murder by gun accounts for less than half the total gun murders
- the majority of these gun murders occur in high crime, urban areas, meaning its not a national problem, but a municipal one

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Looking deeper into the numbers for the root causes ALWAYS leads to a conclusion that guns are not the issue.
It's a shame the issue is so politicised. Neither side is interested in saving lives, they are interested in the political message and how it might sway voters. Pretty sad state of affairs. Don't think I have ever seen a good, balanced, discussion. I'll know it when I see it, because it won't mention guns, it will start with a simple question. Why are people killing each other in high numbers in isolated pockets of the USA?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SlapMonkey

If anyone wants to actually evaluate the data, its available. What becomes readily apparent:

- its impossible to get a same/same comparison. For one, we include suicide in our homocide stats
- veteran suicides make up the bulk of all gun related deaths
- actual murder by gun accounts for less than half the total gun murders
- the majority of these gun murders occur in high crime, urban areas, meaning its not a national problem, but a municipal one

Hallelujah.
Amen.

a reply to: SudoNim

Lol, you reverted to the same nonsense, citing irrelevant comparisons.
I've already told you why the UK is very different from the US and is just as dangerous.

Whilst "idiots" continue with the same failed arguments and comparisons, I'll continue to look at the underlying issues, which have nothing to do with guns.

originally posted by: Gaspode
a reply to: joemoe

True - man is evil. Been like that since the beginning of time.

But I find it hard to believe that the human race is intelligent enough to land a satellite on a moving comet, create technology that allows us to have the world's information in the palm of our hands, cure smallpox, prevent an Ebola outbreak of Armageddon proportions, but not smart enough to prevent 600 people from being shot by one man?

Setting aside that point, and we focus just on the issue of this (rampage shootings) being a major issue in the USA.

Some Statistics

Summed up by this:

Isn't it time to look at 1. why mass shootings like this are so prevalent in the USA and 2. what can be learned from countries where this is a non-issue?

I do not own a gun and probably never will.I will take my chances.

a reply to: Gaspode

To be honest, I don't intend to speak to you like a 5-year-old child. However, I do have a three-year-old at home, so maybe that leaks into my over-the-internet, without-inflections-and-facial expressions communication to where people assume that I'm speaking down to them.

Nine times out of ten, though, I'm just being direct (well, 7 or 8 times, if I'm being honest with myself). But, yes, I fully admit and own that this is a conversation that I'm exhaustively tired of having with people, but I do my research and I know my stats (that go for and against my argument, mind you), and sometimes that exhaustion leaks into my comments in the form of disagreeable phrases or off-putting, terse points.

For that, I will apologize, but I can't and don't apologize for the content, only the way that I sometimes deliver it (or allow the delivery to be misinterpreted). But I think that if you go back--again, apparently--and read my comments, I mostly treat you like an adult, even if I disagree with you. But subjective interpretation is often all that we have to go buy in online forums, so please just understand that things that often may seem belittling or mocking on purpose are not done so with conscious intent.

Subconscious, maybe, but then we get into discussion on how much of that I can actually control...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I understand these things.

You understand these things.

...

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Looking deeper into the numbers for the root causes ALWAYS leads to a conclusion that guns are not the issue.
It's a shame the issue is so politicised. Neither side is interested in saving lives, they are interested in the political message and how it might sway voters. Pretty sad state of affairs. Don't think I have ever seen a good, balanced, discussion. I'll know it when I see it, because it won't mention guns, it will start with a simple question. Why are people killing each other in high numbers in isolated pockets of the USA?

.

Your answer will lead to 1 of 2 areas more often than not:

- living in an urban environment as a poor person sucks, and living an unfulfilling life can create all sorts of irrational decision making
- the media is goading people towards more and more extreme behavior

Individuals haven't really changed. The environment we live in has.

a reply to: Finspiracy

HAD a person, who could shoot, had a .308 caliber firearm at the time to respond then the outcome might have been different ,it is the only way to alter these events favorably at all.
If the average joe looses the capability then all the bad guys get to turn America into Chicago as the Dems are trying to accomplish again and again for deliberate control.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I understand these things.

You understand these things.

...

So now take the truth and become the Credible Hulk. When people throw out statistics like they are just random numbers, challenge those numbers.

Because in the US, the numbers are skewed due to politics. Just like racial demographics in prison...at a glance you'd think that white and black people are imprisoned at the same rate. The reality is, "caucasian" includes latino in federal stats. Just like suicides are lumped into homocide stats.

When you go to Australia, the "gold standard" for 'common sense gun control' you see that they haven't criminalized suicide, and likely do not include suicides in their homocide stats. Right there, you have an apples and oranges comparison when trying to get to the bottom of murder rates.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I argue this all of the time--there is no international standard on how crime statistics are reported, collected, or what the metrics are when compiling the data.

All that I ever get in return is either silence or more nonsense to try and disregard that reality. Quite honestly, it ALWAYS ends up being a lose/lose situation, because the people that continue to argue against it are solidifying their willful ignorance and biases, and the amount of minutes of my life that I'll never get back just keep increasing.

I don't give up often, though, but sometimes it's impossible not to sigh and say, "Why bother?"

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I don't give up often, though, but sometimes it's impossible not to sigh and say, "Why bother?"

Its what passes for entertainment nowadays, i guess. LOL

a reply to: Wardaddy454

The thing is though, all those guns you describe are a minor statistic. Compared to the thousands of handguns and knives used in crimes, rifles etc number around a couple hundred used according to the FBI.

I understand that. However, American population possess the most guns per capita than any other developed nation. The *enculturation* is the crux of the issue.

Your picture is also wrong. Its not "glorified patriotic violence", its just crime.

Fair enough. Yet, America has the highest crime rate and rate of violence out of all the G20 nations. I agree, the issue goes beyond guns. Again, it's enculturation.

And FBI stats point to California being the worst, even surpassing Illinois when it comes to crime. Maybe that's why you get that way when you visit Cali.

I been and spent time in 40 of the 50 states (a month or two here and there at times). It's not really Cali itself that evokes the feeling. It is the overall culture and subtle nuisances of America as a whole. America is a beautiful place with beautiful people despite its issues. However, the way the society interacts with each other is very unique when compared to Germany, Canada, UK, Netherlands, and other western nations. What I mean is: I feel very much at home and very comfortable in those countries I mentioned due to the fabric of society that exist in those places. The energy and vibe is off in America. Difficult to explain in words. Travelling and immersing oneself in other cultures will shed more light. Also, this is simply my perspective based on my personal experiences.

And lastly, they may not have guns but what are the knife/machete stats in those countries.

It doesn't matter. America, despite improvements, still sits the lowest out of all developed countries when it comes to just crime.

Again: visionofhumanity.org...

America sits at 114 out of 163 countries. Look at who it keeps company with:



For comparison:



Play around with that *interactive* link above and read about the criteria used to measure the peace index for a more in depth analysis.

The United States Peace Index, produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, provides a comprehensive measure of U.S. peacefulness dating back to 1991.

It also provides an analysis of the socio-economic measures that are associated with peace as well as estimates of the costs of violence and the economic benefits that would flow from increases in peace. This is the second edition of the U.S. Peace Index.

This year a Metropolitan Peace Index has also been produced which measures the peacefulness of 61 metropolitan statistical areas within the U.S. The USPI is based on the work of the Global Peace Index, the preeminent global measure of peacefulness, which has been produced by IEP every year since 2007.

The last twenty years have seen a substantial and sustained reduction in direct violence in the U.S. The homicide rate has halved since 1991, with a concurrent reduction in the violent crime rate from 748 to 399 violent crimes per 100,000 over this period. Although this trend seemed to be levelling off at the turn of the century, the last three years have seen successive improvements in peace. The 2012 USPI results have also been correlated against a large secondary dataset of economic, educational, health, demographic, and social capital factors, in order to determine the environments which are most closely associated with peace in the U.S.

Read more here - US Peace Index: visionofhumanity.org...

a reply to: ketsuko

So Grand Theft Auto is patriotic violence?

You're going to have to expound on that statement since it doesn't make any sense to me.

I now have a question for you based on your earlier reply:

Was that mass-shooting at the Sikh Temple a year or so ago the result of terrorism just like you claim the Orlando night club shooting was...?

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: Wardaddy454



Fair enough. Yet, America has the highest crime rate and rate of violence out of all the G20 nations. I agree, the issue goes beyond guns. Again, it enculuration.

Im going to need to see the stats to support this.

As i've been saying....America is one of the few "western" nation that criminalizes suicides. Our veterans account for 43% of our gun related death rate due to their high suicide rate.

Before I can buy your numbers, I need to see where they are coming from, and what is going into them. Otherwise...14k suicides by veterans (which are used to stabilize the western economies and support western business) is a hell of an impact to our stats.

It doesn't matter. America, despite improvements, still sits the lowest out of all developed countries when it comes to just crime.

Again: visionofhumanity.org...

America sits at 114 out of 163 countries. Look at who it keeps company with:

The majority of that information boils down to the fact that our government uses its military to the benefit of every corporation in the west (we don't fight just wars, we fight profitable wars) combined with the fact that we overpolice and over incarcerate our public. If that is your angle, you won't get any argument from me.

a reply to: Involutionist

Seriously, try and stop using league tables to compare countries. It does not work.
The countries are so different as to render a straight comparison almost worthless.

Here is an example. There are about 10 states in the US that have a lower murder rate than say Scotland. Many of them have pretty loose gun laws. Not only can you not compare country to country, even using stats for a whole country is misleading, especially for America. It has some vastly different places in it, something you know if you've been to 40 states.

There are many factors, but the two most important are the number of major urban areas in the country and the concentration of poverty.

In short, comparing the mean of various samples without understanding the makeup of those samples is a fool's errand.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Im going to need to see the stats to support this.

Before I can buy your numbers, I need to see where they are coming from, and what is going into them.

Fair enough.

AGAIN:

The United States Peace Index, produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, provides a comprehensive measure of U.S. peacefulness dating back to 1991.

It also provides an analysis of the socio-economic measures that are associated with peace as well as estimates of the costs of violence and the economic benefits that would flow from increases in peace. This is the second edition of the U.S. Peace Index.

This year a Metropolitan Peace Index has also been produced which measures the peacefulness of 61 metropolitan statistical areas within the U.S. The USPI is based on the work of the Global Peace Index, the preeminent global measure of peacefulness, which has been produced by IEP every year since 2007.

The last twenty years have seen a substantial and sustained reduction in direct violence in the U.S. The homicide rate has halved since 1991, with a concurrent reduction in the violent crime rate from 748 to 399 violent crimes per 100,000 over this period. Although this trend seemed to be levelling off at the turn of the century, the last three years have seen successive improvements in peace. The 2012 USPI results have also been correlated against a large secondary dataset of economic, educational, health, demographic, and social capital factors, in order to determine the environments which are most closely associated with peace in the U.S.

Again, here is the Peace Index specific to the USA. Scroll down past map: visionofhumanity.org...

Also, to answer your question more in-depth re; *what goes into these numbers*: visionofhumanity.org...

Scroll down past the interactive time-stamped map to read about the criteria and data involved in computing these measurements along with graphics to further illustrate.

On average, violence accounts for 37% of GDP in the ten least peaceful countries, compared to only 3% for the ten most peaceful.

Looking at the economic impact of conflict, the research found that in 2016 it was $14.3 trillion or 12.6% of world GDP. While still staggeringly high at $1,953 for every person in the world, this represents a slight (3%) decrease from 2015 and the first reduction since 2011. On average, violence accounts for 37% of GDP in the ten least peaceful countries, compared to only 3% for the ten most peaceful. Syria remains the least peaceful country for the fifth year running, having fallen 64 places since the index began – the largest decline of the past decade.

The report also assesses recent political developments in Europe finding that the sharp increase in support for populist parties in the past decade closely corresponds with deteriorations in Positive Peace. While Europe’s overall score on Positive Peace improved very slightly from 2005 to 2015 by 0.3 per cent, its improvement is well behind the global average improvement of 1.6 per cent. Many of the core EU countries recorded substantial deteriorations, including Italy, France and Spain. Increased perceived levels of corruption within the political elite, rising inequality in wealth, deterioration in press freedoms and media concentration, along with diminishing Acceptance of the Rights of Others are linked to many of the issues populist parties have successfully capitalised on. This demonstrates how the negative trends in Positive Peace across Europe cannot be separated from the rise of populism across the continent.

Most of the nations in the GPI became more peaceful over the last year. 93 countries improved while 68 deteriorated. Over the longer run however, there has been an increase in ‘peace inequality’, with most countries having only small increases in peacefulness, while a handful of countries have had very large deteriorations in peace.

Iceland remains the most peaceful country in the world, a position it has held since 2008. It is joined at the top of the index by New Zealand, Portugal, Austria, and Denmark, all of which were ranked highly in the 2016 GPI. There was also very little change at the bottom of the index. Syria remains the least peaceful country in the world, followed by Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, and Yemen.

Also:

The majority of that information boils down to the fact that our government uses its military to the benefit of every corporation in the west (we don't fight just wars, we fight profitable wars) combined with the fact that we overpolice and over incarcerate our public. If that is your angle, you won't get any argument from me.

Foreign policy initiatives and domestic policies are *some* of the variables that affect America's global peace index ranking.

It is *part* of my angle.