Hillary Clinton: Santa Fe School Shooting Should Inspire ‘Soul Searching,’ Gun Control

[Sonea 138]

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)

[bcking 3,157]

19 minutes ago, Sonea said:

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)

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". 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think we can all agree "it's complicated "

You know what I think about using pronouns without clearly establishing your subject...

[Sonea 138]

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.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

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.

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).

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

23 minutes ago, bcking said:

You know what I think about using pronouns without clearly establishing your subject...

Ps I got a guy visiting me today that has a PhD in some form of stastical theory or something. I would like to put you two together and stand between you and the door. 

Seriously we talked about it a good bit on our day trip. Fascinating subject.

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Ps I got a guy visiting me today that has a PhD in some form of stastical theory or something. I would like to put you two together and stand between you and the door. 

Seriously we talked about it a good bit on our day trip. Fascinating subject.

My office is next door to our department's statistician. We are lucky to have our own.

 

I am by no means an expert, though I believe I know more than most doctors. When I review papers without a statistician as an author some of the errors are embarrassing. Very basic stuff. Like confusing logistic and linear regression. But I've also picked up a lot from my office mate. Easy to just go next door to ask for advice.

[Boiler 45,482]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Getting an ID is racist and meant to suppress minority votes.Unfair argument 

My apologies.

 

It does seem all those suggestion are disproportionately directed at PoC.

[javadown2 308]

I just don't see how more laws and regulations are going to help, the weapons are already out there and are available. Most of the things that are being discussed is for new purchases....if we stopped manufacturing weapons today there would still be plenty to go around. Seems that the majority of incidents are mentally deranged people with thoughts of hurting people that have never even owned or that has not purchased a weapon in the past (as most cases recently they had access to weapons in the home). How will these laws and regulations stop them? Yes they MIGHT stop someone at some point( we would never know, but just hope that the statistics would tell us this). 

 

In the latest incident the father said that his son(the shooter) was bullied....now we all know that bullying has been around in the past....but the biggest change in the past 20 years has been the explosion of Social Media which has amplified the effects of bullying. I also don't think that weapons have become more readily available (heck, when I was in High school in the late 80's guys would leave there hunting rifles in the rack in their truck in the SCHOOL parking lots, you can't get much more available then that!). So what is the problem now, there is something that has changed....

 

 

 

[Sonea 138]

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.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Sonea

[Sonea 138]

10 minutes ago, Sonea said:

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.

Just out of curiosity I just compared New Jersey to Switzerland for mass shootings.

 

Switzerland has had three for a death toll of 27. New Jersey has had one for a death toll of 13. 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 5/22/2018 at 12:38 PM, Eric-Pris said:

Obviously, we need societal-wide changes.  Agreed that it won't change anytime soon.  The violence has been romanticized for so long and the internet helped turn these kids into little anti-social monsters.

 

I think those stats that say countries with tougher gun laws have fewer guns are misleading.  Those countries also have tougher courts, not a revolving door system like we have.  There are labor prisons, are no TV's in prisons, they don't have conjugal visits, etc  In other words, our prisons are too easy.  They eat, sleep, work out, play basketball, etc.  Some have a better life than they did on the outside.  In other countries, prisoners drop dead from being worked too hard.  Maybe no literally.

 

Bravo, Sir!  As I have said elsewhere, sentences are too weak here.  Kill someone or rape someone?  Death penalty.  (In cases like this recent TX shooting, there need not be a lengthy trial and wasted taxpayer money.  The thug is clearly guilty.  He should die.)

If you do much research on prisons and parole and recidivism, you will find that many inmates don’t want to leave prison because life is so easy inside.  There is nothing to worry about.  You get fed.  You have shelter and medical care.  And you pay nothing (minus your time).  Cable TV?  Free weights?  Exercise yard?  Basketball?  We got you covered.  As you said, Easy Street.  No.  Prison should be a time of suffering and hard life.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 hours ago, bcking said:

My office is next door to our department's statistician. We are lucky to have our own.

 

I am by no means an expert, though I believe I know more than most doctors. When I review papers without a statistician as an author some of the errors are embarrassing. Very basic stuff. Like confusing logistic and linear regression. But I've also picked up a lot from my office mate. Easy to just go next door to ask for advice.

Nice to have an office mate, so you can pick his brain then post his ideas here and appear to be smart.  Well played!  

(Just messing with you man, I know you are a smart fellow)

 

I have been guilty of saying the number of guns in the US isn’t relevant to the gun homicide or mass shooting phenomenons.  Well, I’d like to say that is inaccurate, but obviously so.  If there were absolutely ZERO guns in the US, we would have ZERO gun homicides or mass shootings.  But that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have homicides, mass murders, or even suicides.  It just means the numbers would be lower due to the fact it is hard to kill many people with a knife (or vehicle, or hands, etc.).  The murderous (suicidal) intent is what is causing the incident, period.  The weapon of choice will always be one that puts the situation in favor of the thug.  A gun vs. a knife, a knife vs. unarmed, a pipe vs. fists, etc.  People who are bent on murder do not care about fair, only winning.  So in THAT light, I hope we can all agree that the number of guns on the “streets” in the US DOES have a bearing on the number of gun crimes.

Take away the effective weapon from a bully or thug, and the likelihood of a crime happening goes down.  Let’s face it, most who should commit these crimes are cowards.  If they don’t see a huge personal advantage against a victim, they likely won’t commit the crime.  But the “better” or “safer” the weapon makes them feel, the more likely they are to hurt someone.  Guns seem to be the obvious weapon of choice due to either stand-off distance or the ability to kill multiple people while remaining a safe distance away.  Vehicles, not so much, and certainly not knives or fists.  But anything that gains an advantage in a confrontation has been showed to be used by thugs.  There are more cars available than guns for instance, but killing someone with a vehicle requires a more close-up approach, and potential for harm or death to the perp.  Ditto knives.  Bombs, used properly, can be a great weapon of mass destruction, but there is inherent risk, as several would-be bombers have shown over the years.

 

Love the statistical repartee between Sonea and King.  Good stuff, all of it.  Some things to consider when discussing the statistics of guns.  MANY variables.  Like how there are now more guns on the “street” than in 1900.  Yet per capita gun crime has remained about the same (technically been dropping for about 30 years, IIRC).  More guns because more are made every year, and population has increased, but... there are less households with guns today than 20 years ago.  Which leads to a possible conclusion of gun collectors buying them up and holding on to them (I know people with over 100 guns, and have heard of people with over 1,000 guns).  These people are not likely to use a gun to kill someone, so that skews the numbers game a bit.  

 

When we discuss gun crimes/deaths, often we leave suicide out of the mix.  FAR more kill themselves than kill others.  Would less people kill themselves if there were ZERO guns in the US?  I suspect so, but it is merely speculation.  Again, people are cowards, and few are willing to really hurt themselves in order to do the deed.  Guns are usually less painful and more effective even than subways, traffic, jumping, etc.  To me, nitrogen is the hands-down winner, but guns seem to lead the way.

 

Lots of intelligent discussion here, thanks to all who contribute.  I am convinced there is no answer to the problem.  No matter what laws are put into place, or what restrictions we inflict (longer wait times, federal database registration), or even mental health checks (which I favor greatly, but also see the potential for unfair treatment)... people are mostly good, but in all of us lurks a little bit of darkness that, if allowed, will come to the surface and cause one to do harm to another.  Keeping the reins on that darkness - that is the key, and can only be done individually.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

23 hours ago, bcking said:

My office is next door to our department's statistician. We are lucky to have our own.

 

I am by no means an expert, though I believe I know more than most doctors. When I review papers without a statistician as an author some of the errors are embarrassing. Very basic stuff. Like confusing logistic and linear regression. But I've also picked up a lot from my office mate. Easy to just go next door to ask for advice.

I confused linear and logistical depression.  It was embarasing 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I confused linear and logistical depression.  It was embarasing 

 

  I confuse MDR and MOR, but I didn't have the greatest role models.