Australian gunman goes on shooting spree

[tabibito]

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/las-vegas-shooting-gun-claims-fact-check.html

A widely shared chart showing that more guns mean fewer gun murders gives a misleading impression.

In response to calls for more gun control and fewer guns, some have pointed to a chart published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, to argue that more guns don’t necessarily translate to more gun homicides.

The point that more permissive gun laws did not lead to a huge spike in gun violence has merits, said Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. But the chart itself, he said, “is a bunch of hokey.”

The chart’s data on the spike in the number of firearms and the decline in the homicides by firearms are accurate. But there is no proof that these two trends are connected. Crime, whether or not committed with guns, has generally declined over the past two decades. Experts aren’t entirely sure why but do say the drop was influenced by a host of economic, racial and demographic factors.

“Not a single criminal justice researcher out there looks at the gun homicide rate solely as a function of the number of private firearms,” said Mr. Winkler.

A few other statistics quickly puncture the chart’s suggested conclusion.

The number of firearms in the United States has steadily increased over the past two decades. It rose to 310 million in 2009, up from 259 million in 2000 and 192 million in 1994.

Gun homicides, meanwhile, fell dramatically from a 1993 peak of a rate of 7.02 per 100,000 people; by 1999, it was at 3.82 per 100,000 people. But the homicide rate has remained steady since then, suggesting the correlation between the number of guns and number of gun killings does not hold past the turn of the millennium.

At the same time, the number of mass shootings has also spiked dramatically.

© Copyright Original Source

There was a rather curious statistical anomaly that got some publicity here a few decades back and demonstrated the sometimes lack of cause and effect when it comes to statistics.
For some years, the number of car accidents in Melbourne, Australia (I think it was Melbourne anyway) rose and fell in keeping with the water levels in the Boulder Dam, Colorado (?)

[lilpixieofterror]

Not deaths in mass shootings, which is the topic of the thread. My point was based on the increase in frequency and the subsequent publicity afforded mass shootings.

That and that the stats show they are rising again, overall.

https://www.latimes.com/science/scie...109-story.html

The study looks at the trend for the decade from 2006 to 2016.

Jim

Shoot up a place and you become famous, do you have evidence that isn’t the primary motivation?

[Adrift]

How about Jim Carrey starring in a movie based on a violent comic book series and then refusing to endorse it afterwards because -- shock! horror! -- the movie was violent!

While it was a strange move on Jim Carrey's part, he's not what i would consider your average Hollywood liberal. That's not to say he doesn't have some very liberal ideas, he certainly does, but he's kinda out there. If you saw his recent Andy Kaufman documentary, or any documentaries on the art that he's doing now, you get the sense that this is a guy who is tired of Hollywood, and has found money and fame fleeting and not at all life-fulfilling. He comes off as someone who is very lost, but also constantly looking towards Christ's work on the cross for hope. I think changing his mind on something that he later regretted doing is fine. I find his honesty, even if it's misguided and weird refreshing. You don't see that often in Hollywood.

[lilpixieofterror]

The CDC says they're apparently on the rise again.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-dea...rs-of-decline/

Any why do you suppose that is? Shoot up a place, instant media fame.

[Adrift]

I agree. One other factor I've noticed is that along with desensitization (numbing) the entertainment association with violence can create an association with exhilaration (a net positive feedback) rather than horror when witnessing or hearing of such actions. Again not in everyone, or even most people. But more than without it, which increases the probability of it having a negative influence on us as a population.

Jim

You can only fill your head with so much negativity before it starts impacting you somehow. You may not go on a shooting rampage, but you're bound to feel the effects of it mentally somehow. Humans are not geared to take in that sort of stimuli without some sort of reaction.

[Mountain Man]

Nhttps://www.latimes.com/science/scie...109-story.html

The study looks at the trend for the decade from 2006 to 2016.

Extend the timeline out another 30-years into the 1980s and you find that it's a statistical flatline. However, there has been an increase in the average number of causalities over the past decade (although that appears to be due to two sharp spikes in the graph, so it's not even a steady increase).

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...esearch-215678

[DesertBerean]

While it was a strange move on Jim Carrey's part, he's not what i would consider your average Hollywood liberal. That's not to say he doesn't have some very liberal ideas, he certainly does, but he's kinda out there. If you saw his recent Andy Kaufman documentary, or any documentaries on the art that he's doing now, you get the sense that this is a guy who is tired of Hollywood, and has found money and fame fleeting and not at all life-fulfilling. He comes off as someone who is very lost, but also constantly looking towards Christ's work on the cross for hope. I think changing his mind on something that he later regretted doing is fine. I find his honesty, even if it's misguided and weird refreshing. You don't see that often in Hollywood.

I agree. I don't care for most of his movies ... Liar Liar and Truman Show are the only ones I appreciated... and I sense the same thing about him that you expressed so well.

[rogue06]

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/las-vegas-shooting-gun-claims-fact-check.html

A widely shared chart showing that more guns mean fewer gun murders gives a misleading impression.

In response to calls for more gun control and fewer guns, some have pointed to a chart published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, to argue that more guns don’t necessarily translate to more gun homicides.

The point that more permissive gun laws did not lead to a huge spike in gun violence has merits, said Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. But the chart itself, he said, “is a bunch of hokey.”

The chart’s data on the spike in the number of firearms and the decline in the homicides by firearms are accurate. But there is no proof that these two trends are connected. Crime, whether or not committed with guns, has generally declined over the past two decades. Experts aren’t entirely sure why but do say the drop was influenced by a host of economic, racial and demographic factors.

“Not a single criminal justice researcher out there looks at the gun homicide rate solely as a function of the number of private firearms,” said Mr. Winkler.

A few other statistics quickly puncture the chart’s suggested conclusion.

The number of firearms in the United States has steadily increased over the past two decades. It rose to 310 million in 2009, up from 259 million in 2000 and 192 million in 1994.

Gun homicides, meanwhile, fell dramatically from a 1993 peak of a rate of 7.02 per 100,000 people; by 1999, it was at 3.82 per 100,000 people. But the homicide rate has remained steady since then, suggesting the correlation between the number of guns and number of gun killings does not hold past the turn of the millennium.

At the same time, the number of mass shootings has also spiked dramatically.

© Copyright Original Source

All that just to agree with the fact that gun homicides fell dramatically while the number of firearms in private hands has jumped. And while it may be fair to argue that "there is no proof that these two trends are connected" it should be note that 'more guns = more gun violence' is pretty much a given on the anti-2A side, so you only have yourselves to blame when someone looks at the veracity of such a premise.

[JonathanL]

It's obviously Trump's fault.

I never mentioned the name - can we have a conversation that does not go there?

Jim

It seems like oxmixmudd has petarded you on your own hoistings, fossil man.

[oxmixmudd]

Shoot up a place and you become famous, do you have evidence that isn’t the primary motivation?

So ... It's not the fault of the lax gun laws, it's not the easy availability of very powerful multishot weapons to those with potential issues, nor is it the fault of a culture that entertains in the most graphic violence and sex at every venue, but rather it's the fault of the new media that reports the events when they happen?

hmm ... so if we just stop talking about it when it happens it will go away?

Somehow I think looking at how to reduce access to powerful weapons rates a bit higher on the rung of potential mitigations against the problem, though any real solution has to get at what is producing people that are so distraught and so bitter that they can imagine taking out as many people as possible is their preferred last act on this earth.


Jim

[rogue06]

So ... It's not the fault of the lax gun laws, it's not the easy availability of very powerful multishot weapons to those with potential issues, nor is it the fault of a culture that entertains in the most graphic violence and sex at every venue, but rather it's the fault of the new media that reports the events when they happen?

hmm ... so if we just stop talking about it when it happens it will go away?

Somehow I think looking at how to reduce access to powerful weapons rates a bit higher on the rung of potential mitigations against the problem, though any real solution has to get at what is producing people that are so distraught and so bitter that they can imagine taking out as many people as possible is their preferred last act on this earth.


Jim

I would say it is partly due to a media in effect "glorifying" the killer (though not intentionally), by making them a celebrity even if a notorious or infamous one. How many sick people have emulated such actions hoping that at last someone will finally pay attention to them or what they want to say? Just look at how many of these kooks write manifestos prior to their actions knowing full well that many people will read them after they commit mass murder -- which is exactly what they want.

[lilpixieofterror]

So ... It's not the fault of the lax gun laws, it's not the easy availability of very powerful multishot weapons to those with potential issues, nor is it the fault of a culture that entertains in the most graphic violence and sex at every venue, but rather it's the fault of the new media that reports the events when they happen?

Mutishot weapons have been around since the civil war era where gun laws were far more lax than they are today. I know you want to ignore the little detail of the media making mass shooters famous, but that’s the reality because:

Violent media is nothing new. It’s been around for going on 40 years.
Gun laws have become more restrictive over the past few decades, yet mass shootings seem to have undergone a slight spike.

What changed? Mass media projecting their crime across the world, bringing them tons of attention and fans. How was than teenager that glorified mass shooters get her inspiration? You do know that a culture has arisen around theses mass shooters, right?

hummm ... so if we just stop talking about it when it happens it will go away?

That’s a great strawman you constructed there, but maybe if we stopped projecting the shooters media reach, to get railings, making them famous, their motivation of using the media to get their message out would disappear?

Somehow I think looking at how to reduce access to powerful weapons rates a bit higher on the rung of potential mitigations against the problem, though any real solution has to get at what is producing people that are so distraught and so bitter that they can imagine taking out as many people as possible is their preferred last act on this earth.

So how do you explain eras where gun laws were more lax that had less mass shootings?

[Sparko]

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/las-vegas-shooting-gun-claims-fact-check.html

A widely shared chart showing that more guns mean fewer gun murders gives a misleading impression.

In response to calls for more gun control and fewer guns, some have pointed to a chart published by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, to argue that more guns don’t necessarily translate to more gun homicides.

The point that more permissive gun laws did not lead to a huge spike in gun violence has merits, said Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. But the chart itself, he said, “is a bunch of hokey.”

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/las-vegas-shooting-gun-claims-fact-check.html

Hokey?

The chart’s data on the spike in the number of firearms and the decline in the homicides by firearms are accurate.

Hmmmm. Hokey but accurate?

But there is no proof that these two trends are connected. Crime, whether or not committed with guns, has generally declined over the past two decades. Experts aren’t entirely sure why but do say the drop was influenced by a host of economic, racial and demographic factors.

“Not a single criminal justice researcher out there looks at the gun homicide rate solely as a function of the number of private firearms,” said Mr. Winkler.

This is BS. If they weren't trying to tie gun ownership to homicides then what is the point of gun control laws in the first place? Of course they are claiming they are connected. That is why they want to remove guns out of the hands of citizens. This chart shows that those claims ARE bogus. So it does have value.

A few other statistics quickly puncture the chart’s suggested conclusion.

The number of firearms in the United States has steadily increased over the past two decades. It rose to 310 million in 2009, up from 259 million in 2000 and 192 million in 1994.

Gun homicides, meanwhile, fell dramatically from a 1993 peak of a rate of 7.02 per 100,000 people; by 1999, it was at 3.82 per 100,000 people. But the homicide rate has remained steady since then, suggesting the correlation between the number of guns and number of gun killings does not hold past the turn of the millennium.

At the same time, the number of mass shootings has also spiked dramatically.

© Copyright Original Source

The complaint that number of guns owned isn't connected to homicides is fine with me. It means that gun control laws have no basis in fact either. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want to claim that less guns means less homicides, then that would mean more guns means more homicides. But if more guns doesn't mean more homicides, then the reason for gun control is wrong.

[oxmixmudd]

I would say it is partly due to a media in effect "glorifying" the killer (though not intentionally), by making them a celebrity even if a notorious or infamous one. How many sick people have emulated such actions hoping that at last someone will finally pay attention to them or what they want to say? Just look at how many of these kooks write manifestos prior to their actions knowing full well that many people will read them after they commit mass murder -- which is exactly what they want.

It is a 'catch 22' sort of thing. But I don't think we want media censorship as a 'solution'. There may be a way to approach the situation that reduces the potential for the perception of 'getting attention' - and I would hope media outlets are doing their best to find ways of reporting these sorts of things that minimizes any potential positive feedback to the shooter. but as with the guns in the hands of idiots problem, you have to TRY to do something about it. You can't just sit back and say 'nothing will work, so let it be as it is'. That's just crazy, but that is how we are handling it.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Mutishot weapons have been around since the civil war era where gun laws were far more lax than they are today. I know you want to ignore the little detail of the media making mass shooters famous, but that’s the reality because:

Violent media is nothing new. It’s been around for going on 40 years.
Gun laws have become more restrictive over the past few decades, yet mass shootings seem to have undergone a slight spike.

What changed? Mass media projecting their crime across the world, hinging them tons of attention and fans. How was than teenager that glorified mass shooters get her inspiration? You do know that a culture has arisen around theses mass shooters, right?



That’s a great strawman you constructed there, but maybe if we stopped projecting the shooters media reach, to get railings, making them famous, their motivation of using the media to get their message out would disappear?



So how do you explain eras where gun laws were more lax that had less mass shootings?

pix - you're being irrational. Something needs to be done. We can't continue to just pretend it's an acceptable cost for free access to guns that crazies can use them to kill large numbers of people without any sort of filter. We live in a society that has degenerated in the area of personal character that we are, as a society, no longer fit to have free access to guns. There are too many people living lives below the moral line where such actions are thinkable. And no-one is willing to make the massive changes in attitude and morals, especially since almost universally the ONLY way that is accomplished is through religious faith. But neither can we sit back and just pretend there is nothing preventative that can be done.


Jim