America is not the worst when it comes to mass shootings?

Makes sense. The US is a country of 320M people, almost the entire population of western Europe. The US will outclass any smaller country on a numbers basis but not necessarily on a per-capita basis. Gun homicides in general are much higher in the US though, mass shootings a tiny percentage of total homicides.
 
Lol, so if you have a small population, and have 1 mass shooting, your number per million people is going to be high?

This is literally fake news.
 
Makes sense. The US is a country of 320M people, almost the entire population of western Europe. The US will outclass any smaller country on a numbers basis but not necessarily on a per-capita basis. Gun homicides in general are much higher in the US though, mass shootings a tiny percentage of total homicides.

They have a mass shooting by the "four or more people shot" definition on average 9 out of 10 days, so even per capita they usually compare very badly. I'm still trying to figure out how they've narrowed down the numbers so much from what I've seen elsewhere. There is one shooting on their US list where only one person was killed, so it's not just that they switched to the "four or more people killed" list for the US.
 
They have a mass shooting by the "four or more people shot" definition on average 9 out of 10 days, so even per capita they usually compare very badly. I'm still trying to figure out how they've narrowed down the numbers so much from what I've seen elsewhere. There is one shooting on their US list where only one person was killed, so it's not just that they switched to the "four or more people killed" list for the US.

I gave up, if nothing else it's a terribly written study.
 
The fact that they chose the dates to put Norway at number one based on Breivik...

...doesnt seem disingenous at all....
 
I gave up, if nothing else it's a terribly written study.

My best guess is that in addition to playing fast and loose with the defnition of "not involving struggles over sovereignty" they are also playing fast and loose with the definition of "not in the course of committing another crime".
Giving them the benefit of the doubt on not just straight up bullshitting.
 
Could I ask you to please point out where you saw that?

Like most gun control articles, this one just drags out a shit ton of tables and charts and rehashes it all. Most of the meat in this one, IIRC, was gleaned from an article from an article from 3 years ago by the much hated economist John Lott.

(and here it is: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/)

Anyway - it would seem that using "4 or more shot" versus "4 or more killed" would push the US even further down the list?

Added to that edit. Using killed instead of shot only changes their US list by one. That means they've done something else to reduce the number. But no, using the 4 or more shot for the US increases the numbers in the US exponentially. In the last three years you've had 1300 mass shootings.
 
Crime Prevention Research Center did this study, it isn't from a peer reviewed journal. Of note is that this list was from 2009 to 2015, so it doesn't include the recent mass shootings, nor the Virgina Teach shooting in 2007, which at the time was the the deadliest shooting carried out by a single gunman in U.S. history. The author picked the starting point of 2009 because that is when Obama became President, which seems like some serious selection bias to leave out the VT shooting in 2007 where 32 people were killed. Also, is he including terrorist type of attacks for other countries? This is why a study needs to be peer reviewed.



CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and written nine books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Freedomnomics.” His most recent books are “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench” and “The War on Guns.”
 
Last edited:
They have a mass shooting by the "four or more people shot" definition on average 9 out of 10 days, so even per capita they usually compare very badly. I'm still trying to figure out how they've narrowed down the numbers so much from what I've seen elsewhere. There is one shooting on their US list where only one person was killed, so it's not just that they switched to the "four or more people killed" list for the US.

I like that you want to find the truth but it's clearly been to produce a certain result. Doubt you will find any consistent reasonable process.

Even in the best case it is so outdated it misses 3 of 5 deadliest shootings in American history.
 
Only by one. Added to that edit. But no, using the 4 or more shot for the US increases the numbers in the US exponentially. In the last three years you've had 1300 mass shootings.
According to gunviolencearchive (aka Slate.com).
 
According to gunviolencearchive (aka Slate.com).

That's just using the blanket definition of 4 or more people shot (regardless of how many died). No exceptions for any conditions, circumstances etc.
 
That's just using the blanket definition of 4 or more people shot (regardless of how many died). No exceptions for any conditions, circumstances etc.
Roger that.

Also, not accounting for the 2,500,000 times annually in which citizens use privately owned firearms in self-defense.
 
Roger that.

Also, not accounting for the 2,500,000 times annually with which citizens use privately owned firearms in self-defense.

Well, I assume it's even possible that if they shot four or more people some of those could be included under that definition of "mass shooting".
It's a very broad definition, but the benefit is that the database they have is very exhaustive and the rules for searches are very straightforward.
No bullshitting in the data itself.

So, about that 2,500,000 data point...
 
Per capita is a pretty disingenuous way to rank. If you note, it's comparatively small population countries at the top. Statistically 1 fatality is going to carry a far larger per capita score in a smaller population country.

Regardless of any statistic, america obviously has a mass shooting problem that needs to be addressed.
per capita is the right way to do it.

"Mass shootings" can be played to fit an agenda.
 
Lol, so if you have a small population, and have 1 mass shooting, your number per million people is going to be high?

This is literally fake news.
no it's not

you can say that per capita is extremely low an insignificant for all countries, if that's your opinion, but it's not fake news simply because you cant comprehend.
 
no it's not

you can say that per capita is extremely low an insignificant for all countries, if that's your opinion, but it's not fake news simply because you cant comprehend.

No it's fake news because they designed their question to give the answer they want.

Not only is it fake news, it is blatantly and intentionally dishonest.

Member I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, so I have no reason to undermine this, other than the fact that it is completely dishonest.
 
No it's fake news because they designed their question to give the answer they want.

Not only is it fake news, it is a blatantly and intentionally dishonest.

Member I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, so I have no reason to undermine this, other than the fact that it is completely dishonest.
scratch norway, say it's an outlier, what about other countries?

there are terrorism stats that include/exclude 911. That's an easy way to inflate/deflate numbers. Not really fake news, statistics....
 
Back
Top