Vox cards: gun violence

[zoogs]

Ah, thanks for the background. I know I've seen some criticism of MJ before, but I didn't remember what it was about.

 

In citing the Cato Institute study and the background of the writer hawking it, I'm trying to point out that if bias exists in one case, it at least appears to be equivalent in the other. Which seems problematic in this topic overall. However, most of the academic work referenced here is from Harvard. Which is not to say it's ironclad, and like the questionable Kleck study, controversy and skepticism may come to meet it over time. But it should at least not be dismissed outright.

 

The specific "Mother Jones study" referred to that was actually the work of Harvard researchers and not journalists is about time between mass public killings increasing in the immediate recent history. That seems to pass the sniff test, does it not? (Within the context that such killings account for a small percentage of the overall, still declining violent crime in this country) ... and, as other academic studies, will I'm sure be met with the same efforts at debate and dispute if it's ever to make its way towards consensus. It's just that this one particular conclusion never seemed very controversial to begin with.

[Saunders]

I'm on my phone, so I can't look it up, but if I remember correctly, one of the issues with their study was they included all shootings with 4+ fatalities, which included bank robberies, and gang related shootings which inflated the numbers. Like I said, I'm shooting video all day, so I can't look it up right now, but I remember reading something about it after it was published. I'll see if I can dig it up tonight or tomorrow.

[zoogs]

Okay, got it. In the Harvard study here using Mother Jones data -- the one I think you are referring to -- the specifically don't include all shootings with 4+ fatalities, which is the standard FBI definition, in order to weed out gang shootings. If those numbers are included, it goes back to the initial Vox card conclusion that mass shootings are not becoming more common; gang or domestic 4+ killing events account for a much larger share (of course) than public mass killing incidents, which tend to be isolated and unpredictable by their very nature (and equally hard to stop). Those killings haven't spiked in recent years, and this appears to be a consensus.

[Saunders]

Ah, ok. It's hard to do this stuff on my phone.

 

I'd really like to see numbers that delineate legal gun owners, unlawful gun users (took family members legally owned firearm, ala Adam Lanza) and criminal gun users (bought gun illegally/ black market). I haven't been able to find it.

 

Thanks for the discussion zoogs!

[BigRedBuster]

What percentage of gun shootings are gang related?