Are there really more "mass shootings" in the U.S.?

Post Reply New Topic

Apparently not. In fact, the U.S. number is comparatively low.

How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average

Abstract: A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters -- 31% -- occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership.

Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.

It is particularly important that Lankford share his data because of the extreme difficulty in finding mass shooting cases in remote parts of the world going back to 1966. Lack of media coverage could easily lead to under-counting of foreign mass shootings, which would falsely lead to the conclusion that the U.S. has such a large share.

Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters [outside the U.S.] than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.

Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than in other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

Given the massive U.S. and international media attention Lankford’s work has received, and given the considerable impact his research has had on the debate, it is critical that this issue be resolved. His unwillingness to provide even the most basic information to other researchers raises real concerns about Lankford’s motives.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3238736

Most of us seem to know that there is a lot of "America-Bashing" going on, and that the exaggerated media attention given to mass shootings in the foreign press only fuels America's reputation as the "Wild West" full of trigger-happy cowboys, machine-gun toting gangsters, and gun nuts with arsenals that would make most third-world nations jealous.

According to the National Institutes of Health, the Top Ten Leading Causes of Death in 2016 were:

• Heart disease: 635,260
• Cancer: 598,038
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 161,374
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 154,596
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 142,142
• Alzheimer’s disease: 116,103
• Diabetes: 80,058
• Influenza and pneumonia: 51,537
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,046
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,965

(Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leadin ... -death.htm)

"Mass Shooting" did not even make it to the "Top Ten", so why all of the emphasis on gun-related violence?

Why shouldn't they, considering the nasty things the POTUS has said when referring to other countries?

It may also be that they realize that the USA is no longer the wealthy superpower with the money to conduct our own studies. Sure, we fund R&D, but only for defense and where a economic payback is likely.

Cause they have a long standing agenda to to control people and that requires us not owning guns. They don’t care about saving lives non of theirnlaws would save anyone and the openly admit they won’t.

I’ll say it again if a Republican pushed laws to limit blacks from certain areas as a crime reduction law that he says won’t reduce crime at all, you’d say rightfully so he’s just racist. Gun control politicians pushe laws they admit won’t stop any shootings. So why can’t people see through them?
If they banned all guns and shootings went up they’d be happy as they got guns banned.
For some though it’s just a fake to get re-elected, they can say look I did some so re-elect me. Then there’s the millions who fall for the lies and actually believe banning guns would save people despite all the studies and gun control politicians say it won’t.
Guy passes background check and kills people, so they say we need to expand backgrounds to private sales, um wtf he bought it from a store and passed the check.
We need to ban mags over 10 rounds that’d stopped him, um but he used 10 round mags. They have a script of the same stupid laws they come out with every time regardless of the situation, they have these laws pre written before the attack, and are just waiting and hoping fir a mass shooting to push them. It’s sick.
It’s far easier then addressing the actual issues which will take longer to fix and thus lead to them losing elections as our voters are impatient.

The only mass-shootings that are being done are by cops upon innocent/unarmed civilians. The «script» that sly talks about is indeed a «script» as can be evidenced by hired actors a week before the news-blast.

I would prefer if the POTUS wouldn't talk about "Mass Shootings." He isn't very good at it.

Last edited by BTDT on 24 Sep 2018, 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are you one of those people who claims that school shootings are fake, and that the survivors are trauma actors?

As an Aussie, all I can say is, we had Port Arthur In 1996..

Since then, multiple times a year, I see something in the news that makes me wonder when a sufficient number of Americans will realize you have a systemic problem on your hands, and enough is enough.

Why would I claim that school-shootings are fake when there have been actual interviews of actual students who have managed to successfully stop or assist in stopping an out-of-control gunner at a school ?

I am simply pointing out that much of what is purported on the «news» does happen to be «scripted» for a pre-planned reason, possibly taking «real» incidents way out of context, and that cops shooting civilians is far more «common-place» than people being shot at a school. Some people also suspect that a lot of these «shootings» are potentially due to mind-controlled CIA-operatives and/or victims.

The corporate «news» organisations just want to blow this narrative of so-called gun-violence way out of proportion as-if though it were far more common than the actual statistics. We are all far more likely to get shot by an out-of-control cop in the U.S.S.A. than to get killed by any so-called known terrorist or terrorist-organisation.

Wow, John Lott wrote this? John is a friend and I can't think of anyone so honest. Good work, John!

Yet you’ve had mass shootings since as well as other mass killings. Also increase in home invasion. Also you didn’t have many before it either.
Same goes for England they had so few before and same amount after. So fun control didn’t do anything.

Imarine if we had 0 cougar attacks for then have one so we go and kill half the cougars, and since we’ve had 0 did we do anything besides kill a bunch of cougars for no reason?
We’re cougar attack’s a problem?

A congressional study as well as cdc and Harvard studies showd gun control had no effect on shootings or crime. That’s why the ban was left to expired and it’s why Obama shut up about gun studies.

The problem is our mindset and culture and no most will never realize or accept it or try to fix it so it’ll just get worse and the media encourages future shooters by making past ones famous. So the next one has to kill more people to be more famous.
They look up to past shooters as hero’s.
We need to stop mentioning the shooter stop talking about them at all and stop calling them a victim.

There are preventative measures for disease but it's almost like guns are glorified.

Mass shooting is not going to appear on the top ten leading causes because it's not frequent in that sense, but just because it doesn't make the list doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Say, 100 people die a year via mass shooting (just a random figure), does that mean we ignore it then? That's still 100 lives.

On a per capita basis, which is the accepted way of comparing rates for different countries, how does the USA compare? Perhaps not so well as the article seeks to portray. And it is not clear that "mass shootings" are defined or measured consistently across countries.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aps-charts

This week I read about a father and son in Texas who shot and killed a neighbour because he put out some rubbish in a way that annoyed them. It's this often random, trivial, malicious and hateful needless gun violence that comes to world attention from the USA, and unfortunately, it tars the reputations of decent Americans too who are as appalled by the extremes of gun culture/behaviour and attitudes in the USA that drive the reckless waste of victims' lives.

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-father-s ... te-1131837

Yes, and nations like Japan, England and Scotland have similar rates of unfortunate, unnatural deaths ... but, they use knives, swords and plain old pummeling instead of firearms, because such weapons are prohibited. Early death is death (and horrible) in my estimation. The mode is simply a detail. The United Nations described Scotland as the most violent developed nation in the world, but it largely prohibits firearms, doesn't it?

The researcher of the corrective paper, John Lott, was an American economist, and has a professorial pedigree including at least one Ivy League college. He is meticulous and quite the gentleman who will often correct other Second Amendment advocates when they get too far afield. Argumentative for its own sake isn't his way. I am proud to call him a friend.

It is a fact that much was hidden in the old days.

One example: racial violence. Racial violence was seen as being the "norm" in the 1970s. If a black person was set upon by a gang of white people, it would have evoked pity----but it wouldn't have made the news.

Molestation in places like summer camps was seen as being the "norm" as well.

And, much is still hidden. Take Scotland again, for example, where firearms are largely missing. How many unnatural early deaths are the result of post-pub beatings or stabbings? Murder somebody in a back alley, skip home and do it again a week or month later. In other words, it is a frequent occurrence. If we complain about firearms, let us also, at least, point out other modes of death.