Sonea

15 hours ago, bcking said:

I agree.

 

While gun control may not be contributing to any significant change in overall homicide rate (in the US or the UK), is it not possible that gun control may be a protective measure against the clustering of mass shootings? Countries with stricter gun control don't seem to be going through the same phenomena we are. Yet they all have media like us, and they even report on the shootings that occur here. 

 

I can't really say that the media is all that different in the UK than it is here. They have fewer sources of news, but their news still focuses on bad events when they occur. They just don't occur as frequently. They definitely report on the US events though. I've been in the UK at the time of several of them. My parents-in-law frequently call us after they occur to see how we are doing.

 

It would be interesting to look for studies that compare how the news reports on mass shootings in the US versus other places, though the problem is most other places hardly have any mass shootings (except for the more recent ISIL/Extremist attacks, though I imagine they have a different set of causes than these non-religious fanatic based mass shootings that the US is experiencing).

Yes its honestly hard to break apart EU data right now because, while it has seen an increase in attacks its mostly driven through Daesh recruiting or sympathizers (of course this is also likely driven by media, especially social media so there is something of a relation I suppose). This is still a minority for the US (three attacks in the past 2 years I think).

It is true that many countries don't have nearly enough attacks to even show a cluster, and if we assume it takes a number of attacks to create a catalyst for quick repeats then they don't have the fuel to really start a chain. Some of this is lack of gun ownership - ie the UK has a total handgun ban (apart from antique blackpowder firearms like mid 19th century cap and ball), a ban on semi automatics, and the ownership is class driven - ie. only the wealthy can really own them due to costs. On the other hand its likely also population driven as well. Switzerland has infrequent mass shootings but their population is only the size of say New Jersey. 

As to US shootings affecting other countries, something I noticed as I am surrounded by family that watch the BBC and SkyNews, is that while both cover US attacks they don't remain in the news cycle for very long. CNN, Fox, and social media carry the information for weeks. I do think in say 30 years, looking back trends will start to show up across other nations - especially Canada.

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

But where is your statistical calculation? You made a claim about statistics. You've just shown two rates there. That isn't statistics. Statistics would be looking at two rates and determining if the difference is due to chance.

 

As you pointed out the homicide rate between 2016 and 1905 is about the same. I could do a calculation but my guess would be it wouldn't be statistically significantly different between those two years. On the other hand, the "mass shooting" rate between 1905 to 2016 is almost certainly statistically significantly different. It is a rare event to be sure, but the rate has still significantly gone up. You already made that point so it would be awkward to deny it. I can run it through medcalc in my office tomorrow to get an actual p value to show the chance of the increase be due to chance but with a RR of 10+ that is highly unlikely (though the confidence intervals may be wide). I don't have the software on my home laptop. 

 

I think what you're arguing here is the absolute risk of homicide by mass shooting is incredible small, which is clearly true. The problem is the RELATIVE RISK of homicide by mass shooting in 2016 is significantly higher than it was in 1905 while the RELATIVE RISK of overall homicide has not changed. My concern is that it's an example of how the demographics of those being murdered is changing. It's why I'm more concerned with specific types of deaths (random killings especially) because I care more about those than "overall homicide rate". 

 

I get that you are referring to inferential statistics, in this case I am simply referring to a rate which is a singular statistic. I am not statistician so if my overuse of the term "statistics" offends you, then I sincerely apologize.   I think we are getting off the subject which is likely my fault for highlighting homicide rates between the UK and US past and present. It had no bearing on the topic of mass shootings but was brought up as a regional difference that can be seen through the data.

On topic - yes mass shooting are increasing. They seem to be clustering. We do not have enough data to prove that media itself is the cause for the clustering but it is one of the more promising causes.

1 minute ago, bcking said:

What do you mean by "against the overall homicide rate". The difference between mass shootings and overall homicide rate is not statistically significant? If the homicide rate has stayed the same, but mass shootings have increased...they most likely ARE statistically significant if you compare the differences between 1900 and 2000.

 

We are talking about two rates. Homicide rate has had no statistically significant difference comparing 1900 to 2000 (I didn't do an actual student's t test but just looking at the numbers it's pretty clear). You've already argued that mass shootings are statistically significantly increased in recent years.

 

Sorry but I think you are using the word "statistically" very loosely, and in this case incorrectly.

Apologies for not being clear. I am referring to risk to the general populace.

Here is the statistic for homicide 2016: 5.3 per 100k

Here is the statistic for homicide by mass shooting 2016: 287 per 323 million ( I think that is .08 per 100k)

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

You have gone from talking about how we've had a statistically significant increase in mass shootings and suicides, to now saying we have had statistically no change in homicide rate. Both of those things can be true, and I thought this thread was about the former not the latter. 

 

Overall homicide rate may be steady, but my concern is the demographics of people that are getting killed are changing. You've provided evidence of that by talking about the increasing frequency of mass shootings and arguing that is significant. 

I'll clarify. Mass shootings are not statistically significant against the overall homicide rate. 

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Also - honest question here - what happened in the US in 1905? Your numbers only work when you start at 1905. 1900 to 1901 the homicide rate was 1.2-1.3 for several years in a row.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#cite_note-nchs1900-4

 

I'm not saying you are wrong about overall homicide rate, I'm just genuinely curious around 1905.

 

It may sound cruel but my bigger concern/question is about the demographics of the homicide. My immediate concern is whether people in my shoes, or my children are at risk. As you've shown "random" "mass shootings" have increased in frequency over the past few decades. That hasn't happened in other places. While media play a role, the UK still gets media coverage of American attacks (obviously not nearly as much) but they still do. They also had their own mass shooting and there wasn't a subsequent increase in those events there. What protected them?

 

I want it to be safe to send my future children to school in the United States, but given our options (leaving) I have a hard time convincing myself.

Regarding the pre - 1905 numbers, I've read elsewhere that data was collected differently and so in all likelyhood it was being under reported.

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

We aren't talking about general homicide here though, we are talking about mass shooting events. 

 

What were the US rates for mass shootings in the 1900's compared to now? As you have already shown in WaPo article you linked, the frequency here has been rising in the past decades. 

 

Has the UK seen a similar rise? Not that I'm aware of. So perhaps in that setting the gun control has had a protective effect when it comes to avoiding mass shootings.

 

I'd also want to know more about the demographics of the homicides. I wonder what the rate of adolescent/young adult homicides were in the 1900's in UK vs US and compare that to now as well. What were the rates of school shootings in both places, compared to now?

 

Just raw "homicide" numbers can hide a lot of detail that may be interesting for particular problems. 

The problem is that those statistics likely do not exist to answer those questions. All I have access to is the broad homicide rate which, again not to be callous, is statistically more significant than mass shootings in the US.

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

What do you mean by regional differences? You mean differences between countries? Absolutely there are differences, and I think they are worthwhile investigating. I don't believe that easy access to firearms is the only thing separating us from the UK. I'm sure there are other differences (I learn more about them the more I live with my wife). I think they all warrant investigation into why their firearm violence and overall violence is lower than ours, and in particular in regards to this situation why their school children are generally safe. My wife wouldn't think twice about sending kids to school in the UK. She is seriously afraid to have children in America over the fear of having to send them to school. I'd all for figuring out why we are so messed up compared to other places.

 

I don't disagree with your hypothesis about media and mass shootings, and the fact that there has been an association found for suicides supports it, but only weakly so. That doesn't mean I wouldn't support a change to how our media reports on these events. This is one of those cases where I would take low grade evidence and still advocate for a change (that's not always the case). In medicine when guidelines are written they should (more organizations are doing this) have two parts to their assessment/statement. The first is the strength of evidence (weak or strong), and the second part is the strength of the recommendation. Sometimes you can have weak evidence, but a strong recommendation (based on limitations in how you acquire the evidence, and based on expert opinion).

 

As you said, it would be a hard thing to study and therefore we wouldn't want to wait until we had stronger evidence. I just like to always be clear when our evidence is weak or strong. 

Yes, when you mentioned regional differences I assumed you meant by country. I think the UK and US are very interesting comparisons for one particular reason. We can actually go back in time and view both countries prior to either country having gun control laws.

The US has had three phases of gun control - 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s.

The UK started major gun control after WW1 and achieved current US laws by the 1930s.

So we can look at the period prior to WW1 when both countries had free and open access to firearms to see what the homicide rates were. This should show cultural differences more clearly than today because both countries were under the same regulations (or lack there of in this case).

(Caveat this is England & Wales...does not include NI or scotland) - 1900s - 0.96 per 100k

USA - 1900s - 4.6 to about 4.9 per 100k

England & Wales - 2010s Hovering right  at 1 per 100k

USA - 2010s   4.4 to about 4.9 per 100k

So despite radically different approaches to firearms both countries are about where they were before gun control.

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'd rather compare us to slightly more similar countries...Hopefully that isn't the most similar country you can come up with (No offense to the Philippines).

 

Are criminals building guns in Australia, Canada, UK, or the rest of Europe? They may be, I just haven't heard of it. Despite the fact that "criminals will just bypass laws", the number of firearms in those countries (even in the hands of criminals) seems to be much lower than America. Funny how that works?

 

Other countries require some of those. At least Norway, and possibly other countries in the area, require a safe and require some level of education to own a gun (you need to be a member of a club and complete a certain number of hours, IIRC). Other countries require proof of purchase of a safe, or even a home visit. Many countries have waiting periods (Australia - 28 days), which seems perfectly fine for me considering there is really never an "emergent" need for a gun. Some places require mental health surveys (Japan, Brazil, Israel), or references (Canada). Many countries require a much more thorough "background check" by the police, and many require police interviews (Germany, Japan, Britain etc...). Oh and also limits on ammunition would be great (Israel). No one should be reasonably expecting a massive shoot out at their home, so you shouldn't need more than a small number of bullets at a time.

 

Will that stop everyone bad from getting guns? No of course not but in many countries with a lot of these regulations in place, even criminals have far less firearms. Obviously it's not zero but nothing is ever 100% effective and you would never expect it to be. The most important part of all of this is that these laws don't limit responsible gun owners from owning guns. If you are truly a responsible gun owner, you should be able to pass these requirements and therefore you should have nothing to worry about. 

 

People really need to stop the ridiculously silly "Criminals will bypass laws" argument. It is truly pointless. Criminals will bypass any law, so why bother having? Murderers still murder, despite it being illegal. People will still speed, so why bother with speed limits? Just because criminals are going to ignore laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

 

Very interesting timeline. Of course that doesn't necessary show that media attention from one attack leads to more. There could be any number of confounders (many of which we have discussed here) that have increased with time.

 

There is also no statistically evaluation comparing the mass shootings with the suicide data. So while again I like the Austrian study it is a low level of evidence to suggest a similar protocol for mass shootings would make a difference. You have regional differences, and differences in the types of actions (suicides vs. mass shootings) so there are significant concerns regarding applicability still. It's also just one study, as much as I like it.

 

Despite the lack of evidence though I'd gladly stop media reporting on the attacker. We've had enough events to start taking some action in Congress, and yet nothing has happened. More events, more descriptions of the killers, are unlikely to change the minds of the people who make decisions. Unfortunately are discussions here are also going to make little difference.

Its fairly hard to study mass shooting data as it is because, not to be callous, from a statistical stand point there aren't enough mass shootings per year to  have empirical evidence of anything so I agree with you there. I do disagree with your skepticism regarding the relations between suicide and mass shootings given the elevated occurrence of suicide at the end of a mass shooting by the attacker. I would conclude that the majority of mass shooters are in fact suffering from depression and suicidal actions. I also find it interesting that you would highlight regional differences here but seem to not accept regional differences in relation to the US and gun violence. Or maybe I misinterpreted your earlier posts?

10 hours ago, bcking said:

You used the same article for both links, I believe that was probably in error.

 

Would love to see the paper you were referencing in the second paragraph.

I'm sorry.

Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.0964abd1e9a9

Scroll down about 2/3rd where they plot each attack on the timeline. It was a real eye opener for me when I first saw this last year (they continue to update it but its actually getting to be an older article).

1 hour ago, bcking said:

What do you mean by "they look very similar statistically"?

 

What statistics are used to compare the clusters?

There are two types of clusters - localized and broad. I won't get in to localized because thats not what we are dealing with here, they are typical of a high density population such as a corporation or school. A recent example of a media driven broad event would be Robin William's suicide - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191405

In terms of mass shootings we are dealing with much smaller numbers but take a look at this article and scroll down to the timeline. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191405   You will notice by in large most mass shootings happen in tight clusters lasting about a year starting in 1982. Then there is a clear gap between that cluster and the next. But the clusters are getting longer. We currently are in a cluster that started with June 17th 2015.

57 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Where are criminals buying their guns from? Seeing as law abiding gun owners aren't doing the selling, how then does happen that they are able to buy guns? Are there criminal gun outlets or are law abiding gun owners just not very good at keeping their guns secure?

Primarily through straw purchases and illegally manufactured guns.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

1 hour ago, bcking said:

That's fine but just to be clear, the study you linked to only looked at suicides.

 

It has interesting results, but it still has an applicability problem since it wasn't specifically on the issue in question.

Thats because no one has tried it yet for mass shootings. Lets be clear though - mass shooting clusters look very similar to suicide clusters statistically. If the cause is related, the cure will likely work. We just need a media with the courage and the desire to put money second and stop naming the attackers.

27 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Both suicides and mass shooting have the same underline contagion spread by media coverage. On a timeline you can see very distinct clusters starting in the late 1990s. Most clusters last about a year or less. But like I've said we are in one long cluster that started in 2015 and has yet to end.

By the way, it looks like a couple of media sources are starting to follow the "do not name" premise. Hopefully pressure on sources that do not will get them in line.

42 minutes ago, bcking said:

The PDF you linked is about suicides, not mass shootings.

 

Did Austria do similar media guidelines with mass shootings to show that there is a similar effect?

Both suicides and mass shooting have the same underline contagion spread by media coverage. On a timeline you can see very distinct clusters starting in the late 1990s. Most clusters last about a year or less. But like I've said we are in one long cluster that started in 2015 and has yet to end.

On 5/20/2018 at 7:53 AM, bcking said:

How is that irrelevant?

 

What are you proposing to keep our children safe? Armed guards? Armed teachers? Metal detectors?

 

Why don't other first world countries need those things to protect children? Why do we need MORE guns for protection when other places get by with less?

 

I get sick of trying to explain our situation to my wife's family. It makes no sense to them (or her, or me honestly). America just seems like a horribly violent, dangerous place for children...and for no real reason.

An evaluation of the implementation of media guidelines has been conducted in Austria.17,18,23 Following implementation of media guidelines for news reporting by the Austrian Association for Suicide Prevention in 1987, a significant decline in suicide rates occurred within the first year (7% decline). In the 4-year period following implementation, the suicide rate decreased nearly 20%, with an even sharper decline (75%) in subway suicides (a particular focus of the media guidelines).

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/bioethics/nyspi/material/SuicideAndTheMedia.pdf

Mass shootings are a contagion. There is a positive feedback loop that occurs after a shooting. In the last decade we have had two such loops. The first lasted about a year and a half (2012/2013). We are still in the second loop that started in 2015. 

If we act similar to Vienna with a blackout of the attacker then I think we can break the current loop and stop future ones. I'm not saying that will end attacks, but they should statistically be less frequent and more spread-out.  In this case I'm always surprised  when they name them since they are minors.

Heck US media is willing to blackout someone running on to the pitch at game...wonder why they do that?....to minimise future fans doing the same.

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   If you are talking about all mass shootings, and not just school shootings, I think the media coverage aspect is less applicable. I don't think the rate or frequency in Canada (or other western countries) approaches the USA. 

 

  Having lived in Canada, one difference compared to the USA is it's harder to get handguns in general, and harder for teenagers to get any type of gun. I guess that might be two differences but I think the gun culture plays a role. Too many people I've come across think guns are glorified toys and that is part of the problem. No disrespect to all the responsible gun owners out there, but there are just too many who are irresponsible.  

I'm counting all attacks.

Canada had 5 in the 1970s,  4 in the 1980s,  7 in the 1990s,  7 in the 2000s,  10 in the 2010s thus far.

To be fair, Canada's numbers are small enough its hard to draw statistical significance to them.

In this thread ( 

) I posted an article with an interesting infographic for the US where it clearly shows "strings" of shootings where after one shooting was followed closely by others. We are stuck in the 2015 string so to speak.

13 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Many studies I have come across say media coverage may contribute to some of these incidents. I don't believe I have ever seen anything or anyone involved with these types of studies suggest that they media coverage is the primary reason. 

 

   Case in point. There was a mass shooting at a school in Canada on  Jan 22 2016. There was extremely intense media coverage of the event in Canada and yet there has not been another school shooting to this date in Canada. Sorry, but part of this "phenomenon" is American culture and our whole approach to firearms. There is no easy way to getting around that, and I think it's safe to say that the current approach is not working.

Canada only has a population of 39million, so its equiv. to a US state in terms of frequency. They have had an additional mass shooting in 2017 + the van attack last month. 

If you look at the frequency attacks there, they are accelerating as well. 

9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Not everywhere, but certainly becoming a pattern in America. 

Its become a pattern because the attacker is glorified and gets press. Apparently Cruz has been getting tons of fan letters and love letters. This guy, now that his name and social media info has been plastered every where will be the same. The seeds for the next attack were sown just hours ago.

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

CNN)An Illinois school resource officer is being praised as a hero for intervening when a former student opened fire Wednesday morning at Dixon High School.

US Vice President Mike Pence lauded the "heroic actions" of Dixon Police Officer Mark Dallas, who shot and wounded the gunman.

"Another example of the brave work performed by law enforcement each and every day. Lives were saved thanks to the heroic actions of school resource officer Mark Dallas," Pence said on Twitter.

Suspect Matthew Milby faces three charges of aggravated discharge of a firearm and $2 million bond, Illinois State Police said. More charges may be filed.

The 19-year-old former student opened fire near the school auditorium where students had gathered for graduation ceremony rehearsal, the statement said.

The suspect fled the school and Dallas chased him, Dixon Police Chief Steven Howell said in a news conference. The suspect continued to shoot at the officer and the officer returned fire, Howell said.

Milby used a 9 mm semiautomatic rifle in the shooting that was purchased by his mother in 2012, state police said. Authorities are trying to determine how Milby got hold of the weapon.

Milby was released from the hospital on Wednesday and taken to the Lee County Jail, where he is awaiting an arraignment tentatively scheduled for Friday, state police said.

 

In this case it was a shotgun and .38 revolver. Neither are exactly on the radar of those seeking gun control.

On 5/12/2018 at 10:53 AM, Nature Boy Flair said:

and that is why the middle class is leaving California in mass numbers. Unhinged absurd liberalism is killing the state 

The middle class is leaving California because they cannot afford to live here due to limited housing. It has nothing to do with freeloaders etc. In the LA and SF metropolitan areas, you earn less than 75K you are poor. Most middle class jobs in the area pay under 100k so therefore they are forced out. There are still plenty of 150k plus tech jobs that replace them in terms of the limited housing. Eventually there will be an equilibrium or a reversal but probably not for 10 plus years.

Dang. 8 posts in and Hitler gets dropped? Godwin's law be damned.

37 minutes ago, bcking said:

So as long as a place has armed guns, the NRA is cool with rules banning firearms?

It still fits with the narrative.

There will be guns in the convention center during the president's and vice president's speeches. They'll just be in the hands of armed guards. 

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

McCabe's fate rests with Trump-appointed prosecutor

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/20/mccabes-fate-rests-with-trump-appointed-prosecutor.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

He is going to need a big defense fund

 

Crook

 

He , comey and Hillary all need to be prosecuted 

Did you read the article? Almost everyone quoted says they are unlikely to prosecute.

8 hours ago, BRENTWOOD said:

Hello,

 

I can't help but seem to constantly worry and it is really starting to eat away at me. I guess coming from Canada where I have always felt safe, I can't help but read the headlines and see the titles that read 'WW3 imminent', 'prepare for nuclear war', 'who will win the U.S. or Russia'. I really hope that I'm not alone in this but the fear of a nuclear war really terrifies me. I know in the summer there was more propaganda about a war with North Korea? I just want to know that I am not alone and if anyone else has these anxieties what helps them to calm them? It really terrifies me some days more than others it affects my day. My sister always just says if there is a nuclear war no one will live anyways so it won't matter where you are Any help is appreciated

 

<3

BRENTWOOD

Not trying to make you feel less safe in Canada, but the US and Canada were always tied together via NORAD and given that most Soviet missiles would have flown over the pole, that means Canada is somewhat of the "front lines" in a nuclear war and certainly would be mutually destroyed along with the US. That coupled with the fact that the majority of nuclear targets are in the northern hemisphere means that the years after the war would be difficult for any northern hemisphere dweller.

So if you are freaking out, move to Peru or something