Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 28206
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Have you a source for that as the data I’ve seem is different, at least in number of casualties.


And the FBI says that the number of what it terms “ active shooter incidents” has grown considerably since 2000
The BBC. Per capita it is unchanged.
 
A link would be nice...

All other crime stats (both violent and property) have gone down since the 1970s so even if it has stayed the same per capita it is still a significant outlier.
This a quote from the BBC correspondent at the time:

"People in the US are no more likely to be involved in mass shootings now than they were in the 1970s or any decade since. The number of mass shootings in the US has risen in line with the increase in population since the 1970s."

Neil deGrasse Tyson got a lot of flack for pointing out:

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.



On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…



500 to Medical errors

300 to the Flu

250 to Suicide

200 to Car Accidents

40 to Homicide via Handgun



Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.
 
This a quote from the BBC correspondent at the time:

"People in the US are no more likely to be involved in mass shootings now than they were in the 1970s or any decade since. The number of mass shootings in the US has risen in line with the increase in population since the 1970s."

Neil deGrasse Tyson got a lot of flack for pointing out:

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.



On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…



500 to Medical errors

300 to the Flu

250 to Suicide

200 to Car Accidents

40 to Homicide via Handgun



Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.
It depends on how you define 'mass shootings', and the method that you deploy.

 
This a quote from the BBC correspondent at the time:

"People in the US are no more likely to be involved in mass shootings now than they were in the 1970s or any decade since. The number of mass shootings in the US has risen in line with the increase in population since the 1970s."

Neil deGrasse Tyson got a lot of flack for pointing out:

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.



On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…



500 to Medical errors

300 to the Flu

250 to Suicide

200 to Car Accidents

40 to Homicide via Handgun



Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.
Thanks for the quote but I’d still like to know what data that reporter is basing their statement on, especially as it appears to disagree with the data from the FBI - the organization who are meant to investigate and track these incidents.. I mean these are charts from their 2017 report
Perhaps 2000 was a particularly good year and that is distorting the data but it sure looks like your chance of a) being involved in one b) killed in one has increased in recent years.

It is true that people do tend to respond more to spectacle than data (fear of dying in a plane crash vs in a car on the way to the airport is the classic example) but given that overall violent crime rates have decreased compared to population I wouldn’t call this the same - especially as the US is a clear outlier among other nations.

Also since a significant number of the 250 suicides Tyson quotes will be by guns as are the 40 homicides I don’t think it distracts from the arguments about the urgency to reduce gun violence especially as all the other items listed we spend considerable resources to try to decrease
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the BBC reporter was using this article as a basis?
But this perception isn’t because of some unprecedented rise in the rate of mass public shootings—far from it. They’re roughly as common now as they were in the 1980s and ’90s. And the data offer a stark finding: Over the past decade, mass public shootings haven’t become particularly more prevalent, they’ve simply become deadlier.
 
Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data


Since you're a man of data, I have to ask, do you reckon there's a scientific reason people would get more "emotional" about men, women and children dying in hails of bullets than they do about people dying in car accidents?

Do you think the rate of people who die in mass shootings is okay because people also die in car crashes?
 
Since you're a man of data, I have to ask, do you reckon there's a scientific reason people would get more "emotional" about men, women and children dying in hails of bullets than they do about people dying in car accidents?

Do you think the rate of people who die in mass shootings is okay because people also die in car crashes?

There is also data that shows deaths from MVAs decreased once laws related to the use of automobiles (seat belt laws and speed limits) were enacted
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top