Debunking the claim that US mass murders are on the rise since 1976.

[NYC_SKP]

Let me preface this by repeating that I want to see a host of measures to reduce violence in America, including sensible gun control legislation, most of California's laws applied nationally.

OK.

I was reading applegrove's interesting post in the other group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625349

And attached to the source article was this graph of "mass shooting" incidents and number of victims by year from 1976 through 2010.



I was thinking that it seems to be mostly flat with maybe a bit of an upward trend and then it struck me.

That graph doesn't take into account the growth in population over that time frame; it's not per capital, it's just raw overall data.

In 2010 there were 40% more citizens than in 1976 but guess what? The shooting incidents numbers haven't risen by 40%-- they haven't risen at all, and the number of victims has risen only slightly.

Adjusted for population growth or measured per-capita, the number of incidents and victims of mass shootings, then, has fallen by as much as 40%.

If I'm statistically wrong, and I'm pretty sure I'm not, please feel free to refute the above.

..

[NYC_SKP]

1. PS: The same statiscal correction can be applied to all gun crime...

Mass murders make up only about 1% of the murders each year, if USA has the data right:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mass-killings-common/1778303/

..

[Jackpine Radical]

26. There has been an overall decrease in violent crime since the early 90's.

[upaloopa]

2. Typical NRA twisted logic.

So the number of people losing their lives to gun violence loses it's importance if the population increases. Tell that to families who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Do you understand how the science of statistics works?

Where did I write that anything is less important?

The problem with gun control zealots is that they think that misuse of data is justified and that using emotion is more effective than making a reasoned argument based on fact.

Too often, fact trumps emotion and the zealots lose ground.

I want to tell families that have lost loved ones that I care too much about them to play games with the data and set meaningful reform back.

[upaloopa]

6. I used to tutor statistics in college.

You can talk about numbers which have no emotional context or you can talk about lives of people.
Turning people into a statistical quantity takes the humanness out of the discussion and that's just what you are trying to do.
"Hey guess what we don't have to concern ourselves with gun deaths because the population is increasing so statistically your kid shot in school is insignificant. Aren't you happy up now?"

[NYC_SKP]

8. You obviously didn't read my preface and want to turn a reasoned discussion into accusations....

You want to put words in my mouth? Did I say, "Hey guess what we don't have to concern ourselves with gun deaths because the population is increasing so statistically your kid shot in school is insignificant. Aren't you happy up now?"?

No, of course I didn't.

When you have to resort to insult and misdirection to make a point, it's proof that you have no argument.

My point is that any attempt to claim an increase in gun deaths is occurring and justifies over-reaching restrictions is a phony one.

Statistical lies only set back the effort.

[upaloopa]

11. What I said is the translation or purpose of your OP

I am putting it in human terms you are leaving that out. Numbers desensitize the statements.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Your translation is a tactic to avoid discussing the matter because you have no argument.

If we went around legislating based on emotion and sensitivity without looking at raw data, we'd get nowhere.

In fact, that is exactly what the poorly written Assault Weapons Ban represented.

[Eleanors38]

28. Some start with reason, then fall back compassion...

when reason fails. Some never bother with reason to begin with.

[beevul]

31. Well well well.

"You can talk about numbers which have no emotional context or you can talk about lives of people. Turning people into a statistical quantity takes the humanness out of the discussion and that's just what you are trying to do."

Nonsense. It just doesn't exclude the other people who didn't shoot anyone. The ones you mentioned in a later post:


"We all lose when there is gun violence and we all lose when rights of law abiding people are taken away."

[upaloopa]

32. I don't understand.

I am not saying to ban guns I am saying talking about gun violence in terms of statistics and to use those statistics to lessen the impact of those deaths is taking the humanness out of the debate.

[beevul]

33. And I'm saying...

And I'm saying that to NOT look at the big picture does a disservice of equal size, to those that might care "when rights of law abiding people are taken away", as you put it.

Its an attempt at controlling the debate. Right or wrong, that's what it is.

[Ranchemp.]

4. Typical gun controller twisted logic.

When you don't like the facts, as posted by NYC_SKP, you label it as an NRA talking point.
So predictable.

[upaloopa]

7. You through the word fact around so much it lost it's meaning.

You labeling something a fact doesn't make it so.
You know we have been saying the same words and using the same methodology ever since the mass shooting of little kids.
If it hasn't changed minds by now it never will.

[Ranchemp.]

10. Your crowd does the same thing.

Throwing the NRA talking points memo when you don't like something.
Your labeling a fact as an NRA talking point doesn't make it so.

[upaloopa]

25. Yep lots of wrong on all sides

[Ranchemp.]

27. Can't argue with that.

I think we agree more with each other on subjects than disagree.

[Straw Man]

5. Logic.

So the number of people losing their lives to gun violence loses it's importance if the population increases.

No. It's just that an increase in rate is more significant than an increase in raw number. If raw numbers increase in proportion to population increases, any statistician would tell you not to waste your time looking for reasons: the raw-number increase is merely the status quo writ larger.

Logic. It's what's for dinner.

[upaloopa]

9. Not to the families who have lost loved ones

[Ranchemp.]

13. And that is an emotion based argument,

not a fact based argument.

[upaloopa]

15. That is just the point. Glad you get it.

Talking about gun violence in terms of statistics lessens it impact. Using feelings and emotions of those involved in gun violence puts a face on it.
It is the tactics of the sides in the argument. Anti gun control folks talk about facts and statistics. Gun control people talk about lives and people and the effects of gun violence.
I am not saying you are a bad guy or anything. I am just pointing out that the OP desensitizes the argument.

[Ranchemp.]

17. So maybe both sides need to come together and figure out a way to

stop the senseless slaughter without the hyperbole on both sides of the issue?
But I've noticed that on DU alone, pro gun supporters are routinely slammed for their views while, for the most part, pro gun supporters try to remain courteous and respectful, not you from what I've read of your posts, but there are several very disrespectful pro controllers towards pro gunners here.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Gun rights people use emotion, too. You totally oversimplify things. And that makes you wrong.

Surely you would admit that gun rights people use the emotional plea that "the government will take your guns" to drum up support, right?

Similarly, many gun control supporters, the smart ones, use statistics and not just emotion.

Statistics and proper use of data leads to meaningful reform, emotions lead to stupid laws.

Just look at the Patriot Act.

[upaloopa]

21. Well I think we need to have both in the argument.

You know that when there is a mass shooting it opens all the wounds again. There is a time for statistics and there is not. Showing understanding when tragedy happens is a good thing. Showing indifference which rightly or wrongly looks like owning a gun is more important than the lives of people often leads to the offensive language.

[NYC_SKP]

22. We agree. But let's not accuse another of indifference for clarifying data.

The data is what it is. To point it out, make a correction to a meme, can only help in the discussion.

I've used emotion to effect, too, because it has it's place.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024179241

Just like good data.

[upaloopa]

23. I'm just saying the offensive words directed at you

comes from someone who thinks you care more about guns than people. It isn't true or right I agree.

[beevul]

34. Where would they get that idea?

Where would they get that idea?

Because that was the meme.

Where did it originate?

From the gun control side of the issue.

It is not, and never was, a choice of guns vs people, no matter how hard some try to frame it as such.

[NYC_SKP]

14. You don't really know what those families think, or if they all feel the same.

You can't speak for them, so don't try.

That's the problem with emotion based arguments, they depend upon supposition and generalization.

Here's a POV from a family member who lose a loved one:

Virginia Tech Massacre: Victim’s Family Speaks Out Against More Gun Control

Six years ago today, the second-deadliest act of mass murder to happen at a U.S. school tragically unfolded itself on Virginia Tech’s Blacksburg campus. On April 16th, 2007 in the early morning light, Seung-Hui Cho armed himself with a Glock 19 (9mm) and a Walther P22 (.22 caliber) and proceeded to murder 32 Virginia Tech students and staff before taking his own life. He also injured 17 people, in addition to 6 students who were injured when they jumped from windows in an escape effort.

Unfortunately, this calamity, like so many others, has not led to better public discourse on the issue of gun control. Recent tragedies like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School haven’t led to a better conversation about the efficacy – or lack thereof – of restrictive gun control, either.

Instead, proponents of gun control use these tragedies as opportunities—opportunities to make an emotional appeal for more gun control while casually avoiding the true debate: whether or not gun control and concealed carry policies actually prevent gun violence.

Victim Parent Holly Adams Opposes Stricter Gun Control
Holly Adams is the mother of Leslie Sherman, one of the victims in the Virginia Tech massacre. Although gun control proponents are quick to point out when parents of victims agree with their cause, Adams is an example of the opposite: someone who recognizes that the gun control issue is more complex than the simple banning of guns. In fact, Adams herself has labeled the movement for more gun control on campuses as “unfortunate.”

http://www.toberight.com/2013/04/virginia-tech-massacre-victims-family-speaks-out-again-more-gun-control/

Oh, and here's an example of pointing out a losing strategy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024199154#post3

[upaloopa]

16. Well we could follow up that with the words of the parents of kids killed last year in school.

This isn't a game. We all lose when there is gun violence and we all lose when rights of law abiding people are taken away.
My hope is we come together because that's the only way we are going to get any where. Let's leave the extremes on both sides to themselves and find common ground.

[NYC_SKP]

18. Yes, we could selectively find all the words that make the case for either side of the issue.

Or we could conduct an honest study to see if there are any trends or commonalities, or find that there aren't patterns.

What we find today are claims that can't be backed up but are designed to appeal to emotion.

The claims come from both sides of the gun control argument.

[upaloopa]

19. I think we agree more than we know

[Straw Man]

30. Eh?

Are you saying that when one suffers the tragic loss of a loved one, one is exempt from all obligations to factual accuracy and logical consistency? And you think that is a sound basis for public policy?

You might want to reconsider that. Emotion-based arguments are used against some of the rights you cherish as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Strawman. That's not what the poster stated.

He called out the claims that it is on the rise. It is not on the rise. Correcting that point does not constitute anything in your response.

[NYC_SKP]

35. Thank you. From the link in OP: "•Mass shootings are on the rise."

Numerically, it's debatable. The 1976 and 2010 numbers are the same but the in-between years suggest a very subtle trend, but not one that I think is conclusive.

And, taking into account population growth, the per capita trend is clearly downward.

Here is the bit in the other OP that prompted my OP:

•Mass shootings are on the rise.

◦According to FBI data, over the past few decades there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625349