Crime Must read on mass shootings. Real clear politics speaks some truth

A major problem with gun death research is the Dickey amendment passed in 1996. The CDC isn't allowed to use any of its funding to "advocate for gun control" (aka study gun related violence). That is a major source of unbiased funding available for such research. In the absence of that funding you're bound to get half-assed partisan studies paid for by gun-haters and the gun companies themselves.

Secondly, I think trying to compare the US to the Phillipines or Russia renders your study bunk right out of the gate. If you're going to be honest compare the United States to similar countries.
 
A major problem with gun death research is the Dickey amendment passed in 1996. The CDC isn't allowed to use any of its funding to "advocate for gun control" (aka study gun related violence). That is a major source of unbiased funding available for such research. In the absence of that funding you're bound to get half-assed partisan studies paid for by gun-haters and the gun companies themselves.

Secondly, I think trying to compare the US to the Phillipines or Russia renders your study bunk right out of the gate. If you're going to be honest compare the United States to similar countries.

The question is, does the US have more mass shootings then other countries, and you think looking at other countries like Russia or the Phillipines is somehow wrong?
 
And it is killing people. The media is guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists.

People need to take the responsibility first though. It's like pointing a finger at a drug dealer and claiming he caused an overdose epidemic. No, he did not - the junkies did. Government cannot be trusted to do even the shit it is paid to, so there can be no expectation of effective enforcement from their side - besides, the fucking idiots who would stand to benefit from a news detox more than anyone are the ones who would be first to scream "ERMERGERD TOTALITARIANISM!!" if the government even tried, so that's a no go. The media outlets have zero incentive to stop feeding us shit - that's like asking McDonald's to go full vegan menu - they'd go broke in a week. Are they detestable pieces of flaming shit for that? Yes, inasmuch as any drug dealer is, but they cannot be forced to look out for our best interests as they conflict with their best interests.

So that leaves us with the junkies - us. We can a) abdicate the responsibility for our well-being and shut the fuck up about any and all bad things that transpire as a result or b) do something about it by disengaging from the media outlets and focusing attention on our own lives and those of our family and friends.

But the one thing we need to disabuse ourselves of is the notion that we are owed better treatment by the media. Our interests are opposite.
 
The question is, does the US have more mass shootings then other countries, and you think looking at other countries like Russia or the Phillipines is somehow wrong?

The level of corruption and state sponsored violence in those countries is going to skew those numbers.

Putin had one of the members of the opposition party gunned down in the streets (not to mention poisoning several ex-spies). Duerte has his own execution squads and gave the green-light to cops and soldiers to kill criminals with impunity.
 
People need to take the responsibility first though. It's like pointing a finger at a drug dealer and claiming he caused an overdose epidemic. No, he did not - the junkies did. Government cannot be trusted to do even the shit it is paid to, so there can be no expectation of effective enforcement from their side - besides, the fucking idiots who would stand to benefit from a news detox more than anyone are the ones who would be first to scream "ERMERGERD TOTALITARIANISM!!" if the government even tried, so that's a no go. The media outlets have zero incentive to stop feeding us shit - that's like asking McDonald's to go full vegan menu - they'd go broke in a week. Are they detestable pieces of flaming shit for that? Yes, inasmuch as any drug dealer is, but they cannot be forced to look out for our best interests as they conflict with their best interests.

So that leaves us with the junkies - us. We can a) abdicate the responsibility for our well-being and shut the fuck up about any and all bad things that transpire as a result or b) do something about it by disengaging from the media outlets and focusing attention on our own lives and those of our family and friends.

But the one thing we need to disabuse ourselves of is the notion that we are owed better treatment by the media. Our interests are opposite.

Here is the thing. If the media has no responsibility beyond profit motive, then it needs to lose it's special constitutional rights.

It is no longer serving the special purpose it got those special rights for.
 
Here is the thing. If the media has no responsibility beyond profit motive, then it needs to lose it's special constitutional rights.

It is no longer serving the special purpose it got those special rights for.

Agreed. It's past due.
 
During this same period of time, Murka also had a lot of other issues other countries did not have simply because we have certain freedoms or our laws are different. Yes, more guns will mean more shootings. We also had a lot more crime during that second half of 20th century than a lot of places. Places like China back then did not have a crack or heroin epidemic because they had like no freedoms whatsoever. But who wants to live like they did?

With freedoms comes pros and cons. We could have prevented all the cyberbullying suicides too if we disallowed or curbed freedom of speech by a lot as well. We never have the GFC if we put a lot of checks on High Finance.

The only surefire ways to eliminate mass shootings, violent crimes, or any crimes including white collar is to curtail freedom by a lot. It is either no guns whatsoever, no more shootings/gun crimes, and if shootings/gun crimes happen, let security apparatus protect you. Or let everyone have guns, and if shootings/gun crimes happen, one gets to protect oneself.

edit, on page 14 of Lott's report he lists all the countries. Most of the top 50 are practically lawless, really high crime, and dirt poor, or has a rebellion of sorts going on. We really ought to only compare ourselves to western Europe, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, etc etc.
 
Last edited:
The level of corruption and state sponsored violence in those countries is going to skew those numbers.

Putin had one of the members of the opposition party gunned down in the streets (not to mention poisoning several ex-spies). Duerte has his own execution squads and gave the green-light to cops and soldiers to kill criminals with impunity.

Russia has 5 to 10 guns per 100 people. We have 100 to 110 guns per 100 people.

Not only is the question does the US have more mass shootings, the other question is does our rate of gun ownership lead to that increased rate of mass shootings, if it exists.

So while you can point to political corruption or socio-economic reasons for those shootings in Russia, you can't dismiss that they have 1/10th the private ownership of guns, and apparently a similiar rate of mass shootings.
 
Russia has 5 to 10 guns per 100 people. We have 100 to 110 guns per 100 people.

Not only is the question does the US have more mass shootings, the other question is does our rate of gun ownership lead to that increased rate of mass shootings, if it exists.

So while you can point to political corruption or socio-economic reasons for those shootings in Russia, you can't dismiss that they have 1/10th the private ownership of guns, and apparently a similiar rate of mass shootings.
I think the better question is does it contribute to an increase in our mass shooting rate? No factor stands alone as the only factor. I already stated the problem with gun violence research is that we aren't allowed to use public funds to study it, therefore rendering the studies that do come out flawed, and I do believe the only reason someone would study the mass shooting rate of the United States and Russia or the US and the Philippines is to make the US look less violent.

I suppose it's fair to criticize the democrats for using a flawed study in their statements, but only if you use the same criteria for Republican politicians who quashed quality research that might oppose a massive rate of gun ownership and exploit that lack of research to declare victory for their side. Secondly, logic would follow that the gun lobby and their pet politicians fear what would come out of such studies if they were conducted, or else why would they try so hard to quash it?
 
I think the better question is does it contribute to an increase in our mass shooting rate? No factor stands alone as the only factor. I already stated the problem with gun violence research is that we aren't allowed to use public funds to study it, therefore rendering the studies that do come out flawed, and I do believe the only reason someone would study the mass shooting rate of the United States and Russia or the US and the Philippines is to make the US look less violent.

I suppose it's fair to criticize the democrats for using a flawed study in their statements, but only if you use the same criteria for Republican politicians who quashed quality research that might oppose a massive rate of gun ownership and exploit that lack of research to declare victory for their side. Secondly, logic would follow that the gun lobby and their pet politicians fear what would come out of such studies if they were conducted, or else why would they try so hard to quash it?

I won't defend the NRA. They are connected to ALEC, and ALEC is a bunch of union busting fascists.

We have a constitutional right to bare arms.

I think if their is a conspiracy afoot here, it would be to change the law, not to keep it how it always was.

All the pro-gun people need to show is that anything that has changed, has nothing to do with guns, because we have always had them.

It is the anti-gun people who need a conspiracy to get what they want.

You should be skeptical of them.

I understand as a economic progressive that the burden of proof is on me, because I am advocating for change. Where as a economic conservative is simply advocating we change nothing. All the economic conservative has to show is that my progressive ideas would cause harm, or even the potential of harm. The burden of proof is on me.

This same logic would seem to apply here as well.
 
I won't defend the NRA. They are connected to ALEC, and ALEC is a bunch of union busting fascists.

We have a constitutional right to bare arms.

I think if their is a conspiracy afoot here, it would be to change the law, not to keep it how it always was.

All the pro-gun people need to show is that anything that has changed, has nothing to do with guns, because we have always had them.

It is the anti-gun people who need a conspiracy to get what they want.

You should be skeptical of them.

I understand as a economic progressive that the burden of proof is on me, because I am advocating for change. Where as a economic conservative is simply advocating we change nothing. All the economic conservative has to show is that my progressive ideas would cause harm, or even the potential of harm. The burden of proof is on mine.

This same logic would seem to me that it would apply here as well.
That's all well and good, but how can you prove anything if you can't fund a study that would prove it?

Can a prosecutor prove a case against a defendant if they're barred from presenting evidence against the defendant?
 
we aren't allowed to use public funds to study it, therefore rendering the studies that do come out flawed
Are you talking about the CDC being banned from advocating for the gun control lobbies?

Also, which studies came out flawed - I'm genuinely curious.
 
Are you talking about the CDC being banned from advocating for the gun control lobbies?

Also, which studies came out flawed - I'm genuinely curious.
The CDC is banned from using public funds to study gun violence by the Dickey Amendment. If you consider a study possibly reaching a conclusion that presents guns in a bad light as advocacy for the gun control lobbies, then I guess yes, it prevents the CDC from "advocating" for gun control.

IMO the two studies Viva and I were discussing: The Lankford and Lott studies, are flawed.
 
That's all well and good, but how can you prove anything if you can't fund a study that would prove it?

Can a prosecutor prove a case against a defendant if they're barred from presenting evidence against the defendant?



I don't care who pays for it.

If that is something you feel strongly about, that is fine, I don't see a reason to oppose it.

I'm still very skeptical of any anti-gun person that would go after rifles, when they kill about 200 people a year, and hanguns are killing 1,000's.

I mean when you combine the fact that there is no evidence the US has more mass shootings then the rest of the world, with the fact that this is the rational they gave to go after rifles......Well, I hope your skeptic senses get to tingling.
 
I think the better question is does it contribute to an increase in our mass shooting rate? No factor stands alone as the only factor. I already stated the problem with gun violence research is that we aren't allowed to use public funds to study it, therefore rendering the studies that do come out flawed, and I do believe the only reason someone would study the mass shooting rate of the United States and Russia or the US and the Philippines is to make the US look less violent.

I suppose it's fair to criticize the democrats for using a flawed study in their statements, but only if you use the same criteria for Republican politicians who quashed quality research that might oppose a massive rate of gun ownership and exploit that lack of research to declare victory for their side. Secondly, logic would follow that the gun lobby and their pet politicians fear what would come out of such studies if they were conducted, or else why would they try so hard to quash it?
I don't really support more gun control but that said I agree here. Of course if you take all the countries of the world and look at their mass shooting rates we won't do that badly but I don't really care how the US compares to shitholes like Russia or Yemen or the Philippines(no offense @ShinkanPo).
 
I don't really support more gun control but that said I agree here. Of course if you take all the countries of the world and look at their mass shooting rates we won't do that badly but I don't really care how the US compares to shitholes like Russia or Yemen or the Philippines(no offense @ShinkanPo).

Exactly. I'm sure the US would look real good if we threw in Syria and Iraq as well.
 
I don't care who pays for it.

If that is something you feel strongly about, that is fine, I don't see a reason to oppose it.

I'm still very skeptical of any anti-gun person that would go after rifles, when they kill about 200 people a year, and hanguns are killing 1,000's.

I mean when you combine the fact that there is no evidence the US has more mass shootings then the rest of the world, with the fact that this is the rational they gave to go after rifles......Well, I hope your skeptic senses get to tingling.
Who funds a study is very important. A study funded by the gun lobby is going to be skewed out to be pro-gun. Likewise, a study from a strong anti-gun lobbying group will be skewed to be anti-gun.

That said, I don't have all the answers, and I believe conducting the study is the first step to finding a solution.
 
I don't really support more gun control but that said I agree here. Of course if you take all the countries of the world and look at their mass shooting rates we won't do that badly but I don't really care how the US compares to shitholes like Russia or Yemen or the Philippines(no offense @ShinkanPo).

Then isn't the only legit comparison ourselves in the past?

Europe isn't like us. We should compare individual states to European countries.

If we do that, I'm pretty sure Vermont has the same or less gun violence than Germany, and 50 times as many guns.

Now, if anyone wants to take a look at economic anxiety, and acts of domestic terror in the US, their is a study I would like to see. I have a feeling you will find a rise in acts of domestic terror accompanied by economic crisis.

Thats right, don't ban guns, ban banksters.
 
Last edited:
Now, if anyone wants to take a look at economic anxiety, and acts of domestic terror in the US, their is a study I would like to see. I have a feeling you will find a rise in acts of domestic terror accompanied by economic crisis.

Thats right, don't ban guns, ban banksters.
There's a pretty well established line of research which shows that places with pronounced income inequality often lead to higher violent crime rates.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/does-inequality-cause-crime/381748/
 
Back
Top