For today's mass shooting event, we go to... (spins wheel) Chicago!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Averages in what sense?

A mean is a specific type of average, and I meant exactly what I wrote.

**Kilkrazy**

djones520 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think anyone has an argument based in statistics.

We can argue about violent crime rates all we like. It's difficult to compare them because of different definitions in different countries. For example, the USA doesn't record a crime as violent unless a weapon was involved. The UK records any assault and any sex crime as a violent crime, regardless of weapons or not. This means the "violent crime" rate is artificially low in the USA and artificially high in the UK.

We also need to accept that crime rates are not driven solely by the availability of weapons. It is a complex mix of many social factors.

You're very wrong about the US portion. Weapons have nothing to do with categorization of violent crimes.

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

If you read the definition carefully you will see that violent crimes in the USA do not include assaults that are made without the benefit of weapons. That type of assault is included in the UK figures, as are sexual offences that are not included in the US figures.

They include "hands, feet, other body parts" as weapons. So all assaults are in that category. Robbery works the same way. In their "weapon" category, they reference Strong-Arm, which is just the threat of use of force, which could just mean something as simple as handing a note over saying you'll shoot the place up, or even just punch someone in the head.

They don't. They include aggravated assault, which is an assault involving the use of weapons. The FBI UCR stats do not include assault (battery) without a weapon, which in the USA is treated as a misdemeanor. Thus, the kind of post-pub pagga typical of the UK is included within UK violent crime stats and not within the US UCR stats.

**Spartak**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/12/the-list-the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-texas-history/
1. Oct. 16, 1991: A deadly shooting rampage took place in Killeen, Texas, as George Hennard opened fire at a Luby’s Cafeteria, killing 23 people before taking his own life. 20 others were wounded in the attack.
***Yes. And this is what started CHLs in Texas. Several people had firearms in their vehicles but could not get to them.
2 .Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.
***Yes and civilians with deer rifles kept his head down until police could get up there and take him out.
3. Nov. 5, 2009: Thirteen soldiers and civilians were killed and more than two dozen wounded when a gunman walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and opened fire. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.
****You mean THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN A GUN FREE ZONE?
4. Sept. 15, 1999: Seven people were killed and seven others injured when a gunman opened fire inside a crowded chapel at Fort Worth’s Wedgewood Baptist Church. Some worshipers believed that Larry Gene Ashbrook was pulling a prank and continued singing after the shooting began. The murderer killed himself.
***Yep. As head usher at our church I’m extremely aware of that. many churches are now extremely aware of that. But thats just one attack on a church.
You also forgot about:
5. In 1836 5,000 Mexican gangs surrounded 200 people holed up in a church in San Antonio. Shouting “LA RAZA!” 185 civilians were killed. Police did not respond for at least an hour.
Now look at the 500+ murders in Chicago this year.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Forar wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Except, you know, that statistics support the notion that areas with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime. Take away the means of protection from law abiding citizens and only the criminals have the guns.

Australia and Canada both have vastly stricter gun laws than the USA.

I wasn't aware we also had more gun crime too.

Wait...

They do have more violent crime however.

Thank you frazzled, I was working on a response to that but you beat me to it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Violent crime is higher in the UK then the US.

That is an urban myth started by uninformed reporters (which seem to be all of them these days, really).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Its not an urban myth, you didnt actually read the article did you? The ruleing was weather or not the internet meme was accurate, its not. quoted from the linked article

"Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."

"much smaller difference in violent crime rates" even if (and we dont know) crime rates in Europe and the UK are lower than in the US the difference is small, and yet Europe is supposidly this gun free utopia eh?

**Forar**

Frazzled wrote:They do have more violent crime however.

I'd be happy to see the statistics being cited here. A cursory Googling is showing the opposite, and I'd be interested to see what I'm missing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, in terms of mass shootings in a global sense, what is currently ongoing in a Nairobi mall is utterly terrible.

Wiki claims 68 dead, over 200 injured, taken with the usual wiki grains of salt, and recognition that more accurate info will likely be available once the event is over and untold amounts of info are compiled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_shopping_mall_shooting

Edit part 2: I see we have a thread on the matter.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

cincydooley wrote:
motyak wrote:
I know this is a late reply, but I can't let this just slide without contention

cincydooley wrote:

And then, in regards to Australia...there's this:

http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Look at the trend in gun homicides in the final graph.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

That may be a more clear example of how the gun crime has declined. And before you go 'oh well the knife/sharp object crime has increased, therefore they just swapped from guns to knives', they haven't increased by the same amount that it dropped (it increased by less than it dropped), which means all up its a positive change in terms of homicide by firearms, and homicide by weapons in general (well blunt weapons aren't on here, but at least firearms and sharp weapons).

http://web.archive.org/web/20090221083431/http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html

While this one doesn't chart from immediately post-restriction, it still shows the decrease in effect.

So there we go. When yanks quote stats from people/organisations in your country about our homicide rates it always aggravates me. I mean for gods sake, our attorney general at the time asked the NRA to stop using Australia as an example because they were falsifying the data. Doesn't this put the data you'd take from US organisations about Australian gun crime in a bad light? A bad enough light to stop using them to try and prove your points?

That's great that gun related deaths have gone down. It doesn't change the fact that robberies and home invasions are significantly up since the gun ban. One could make a reasonable argument that, with nothing to fear from robbing a house in the way of firearms, home invasion has become an "easier, less risky" crime to commit.

Didn't we already debunk this a few months ago?

It's difficult to tell what "home invasions" means because it's not a statistic we track and the article you linked doesn't provide a source for its assertion. Overall, the yearly number of victims of armed robbery seems to be pretty similar to what it was when the gun ban was introduced, despite the population of the country increasing since then. It did climb until some point in 2001, then dropped off, with most of the drop coming after our second round of gun bans after the shooting at a university here. As you've noted, homicides with firearms are also down.

So, basically everything you're saying is still false since last time we talked about it.

**whembly**

Well then... let's see what the CDC found out based on Obama's executive order to research gun violence:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

It is really interesting that the anti-gun crowd/media is ignoring this this report... especially since this was ordered by Obama.

Doesn't fit the narrative, eh?

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

It is really interesting that the anti-gun crowd/media is ignoring this this report... especially since this was ordered by Obama.

Doesn't fit the narrative, eh?

Give it enough time... CNN or MSNBC or someone will somehow manage to twist the words around to sound really, really scary... which of course will lead Fox to retwist THOSE words into something else entirely, and then we're right back where we were before it all started.

**whembly**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
whembly wrote:

It is really interesting that the anti-gun crowd/media is ignoring this this report... especially since this was ordered by Obama.

Doesn't fit the narrative, eh?

Give it enough time... CNN or MSNBC or someone will somehow manage to twist the words around to sound really, really scary... which of course will lead Fox to retwist THOSE words into something else entirely, and then we're right back where we were before it all started.

Heh... that's so true...

I'm reading this Harvard Research...
The numbers presented here supports the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”
...
...
Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.

People kill people.

That's what I'm saying ya'll...

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

So we're using surveys from 1997 of prison inmates to discuss mass shootings?

Also: Where exactly do you think those guns came from to begin with? Do you think they manufactured them by themselves?

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

So we're using surveys from 1997 of prison inmates to discuss mass shootings?

I'm not sure I follow you...

I guess the researchers were trying to ascertain how one would get their weapons prior to said "shooting event". Convicts is a good place to start... o.O

Also: Where exactly do you think those guns came from to begin with? Do you think they manufactured them by themselves?

I don't think that's in question...

Take the time to read that CDC report. I'll admit it's a clunky interface, but it's a good read.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

So we're using surveys from 1997 of prison inmates to discuss mass shootings?

I'm not sure I follow you...

I guess the researchers were trying to ascertain how one would get their weapons prior to said "shooting event". Convicts is a good place to start... o.O

It's not complicated to figure out at all unless you're being willfully obtuse.

Also: Where exactly do you think those guns came from to begin with? Do you think they manufactured them by themselves?

I don't think that's in question...

Take the time to read that CDC report. I'll admit is a clunky interface, but it's a good read.

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

**Frazzled**

Do you disagree with it and if so why?

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Do you disagree with it and if so why?

Disagree with what?

Do I disagree with the idea that "stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime"? Yeah, I do disagree with that. Whether someone is "using or possessing" a firearm that came from "family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market" the guns themselves have originated from one of those avenues: legally obtained firearms or firearms which have been stolen.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

So we're using surveys from 1997 of prison inmates to discuss mass shootings?

I'm not sure I follow you...

I guess the researchers were trying to ascertain how one would get their weapons prior to said "shooting event". Convicts is a good place to start... o.O

It's not complicated to figure out at all unless you're being willfully obtuse.

Yeah... that's old.

Spoiler:

Also: Where exactly do you think those guns came from to begin with? Do you think they manufactured them by themselves?

I don't think that's in question...

Take the time to read that CDC report. I'll admit is a clunky interface, but it's a good read.

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

Some of the statistics does seem out of date...it's almost as if this was a "pre-research" report.

There's some good stuff in there...

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

So where is the data that proves it wrong?

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

So where is the data that proves it wrong?

Readily available via the magic of Google.

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

So where is the data that proves it wrong?

Readily available via the magic of Google.

Please enlighten us. Harvard and the CDC have basically said the same thing with new studies conducted in the last year. Your saying the CDC is wrong cause it's using old data. Well what organizations out there, that are reliable, support that assertion?

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

So we're using surveys from 1997 of prison inmates to discuss mass shootings?

I'm not sure I follow you...

I guess the researchers were trying to ascertain how one would get their weapons prior to said "shooting event". Convicts is a good place to start... o.O

It's not complicated to figure out at all unless you're being willfully obtuse.

Yeah... that's old.

You are absolutely right. 1997 is pretty old for statistics when the report is being funded by the CDC and a collection of medical institutions/private donors.

Spoiler:

Also: Where exactly do you think those guns came from to begin with? Do you think they manufactured them by themselves?

I don't think that's in question...

Take the time to read that CDC report. I'll admit is a clunky interface, but it's a good read.

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

Some of the statistics does seem out of date...it's almost as if this was a "pre-research" report.

Which makes no difference really. If it's a "pre-research report" being done in 2013 and citing statistics from 1997, it makes you wonder exactly what the hell the funding is going towards.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

So where is the data that proves it wrong?

Readily available via the magic of Google.

Please enlighten us. Harvard and the CDC have basically said the same thing with new studies conducted in the last year. Your saying the CDC is wrong cause it's using old data. Well what organizations out there, that are reliable, support that assertion?

Actually I am saying that this report, done by the "Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council" at the behest of the CDC is questionable.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Sweet, Kanluwen is here! Time for everyone else to back up his claims ;D

Edit: Ninja'd

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

I did read it. It's not very well researched in places and continually cites outdated statistics.

So where is the data that proves it wrong?

Readily available via the magic of Google.

**Kanluwen**

Yawn.

So where's your citations? Since I guess Dakka is now an academic journal.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Kanluwen wrote:
Yawn.

So where's your citations? Since I guess Dakka is now an academic journal.

And here's the "This is not an academic discussion" part!

Do you have a bingo sheet I could use?

**Kanluwen**

Sure do.

It's called welcome to ignore. You contribute nothing except trying to bait the conversation away from the subject at hand.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Yawn.

So where's your citations? Since I guess Dakka is now an academic journal.

Again what are your arguments against the report? That some of the data is dated? Are you actually disputing the results? If so, with what?

**Kanluwen**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Do you disagree with it and if so why?

Disagree with what?

Do I disagree with the idea that "stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime"? Yeah, I do disagree with that. Whether someone is "using or possessing" a firearm that came from "family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market" the guns themselves have originated from one of those avenues: legally obtained firearms or firearms which have been stolen.

I already answered this.

There is a reason I picked one very specific part of the report out in the context of this thread and the discussion at hand.

**djones520**

The "dated" data, comes from a time that gun crime was at significantly higher rates then it is today. So more guns are being stolen and used in fewer crimes today?

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Kanluwen wrote:
Sure do.

It's called welcome to ignore. You contribute nothing except trying to bait the conversation away from the subject at hand.

I think you need to Google what a bingo sheet is. That's nowhere near it!

**Frazzled**

B i n g o
b i n g o
and bingo was his name O!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Do you disagree with it and if so why?

Disagree with what?

Do I disagree with the idea that "stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime"? Yeah, I do disagree with that. Whether someone is "using or possessing" a firearm that came from "family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market" the guns themselves have originated from one of those avenues: legally obtained firearms or firearms which have been stolen.

I already answered this.

There is a reason I picked one very specific part of the report out in the context of this thread and the discussion at hand.

Ok thats a criticism depending ont he details of the report (if its a time series showing evolution as an example). Are you disputing the results?

**Ensis Ferrae**

I do believe that most of the crimes of 1997 that use firearms haven't changed much since then, so the data is just as relevant today as it was then.

If the discussion was on Identity Theft, then Kan may have an argument as to the age of the data used.