"Batman Massacre"

[Zod]

I think I want to throw this into the debate:
Norway have gun control. Remember what happened a year ago?

A man bought some guns legally, and then went on a shooting rampage with them?

I find it an interesting point that most - if not all - mass shottings have invloved legally owned guns.

[Rapscallion]

Norway have gun control. Remember what happened a year ago?

Seems to happen about every three months in the US. How often in Norway?

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I find it an interesting point that most - if not all - mass shottings have invloved legally owned guns.

Most reported mass shootings.

There are a lot of shootings that never make much of a splash in the papers because the victims are often also criminals or those who associate with the same.

What we normally get plastered all over the news across the nation are the planned events. There are spontaneous acts of mayhem and violence that break out regularly, leaving dead and wounded in their wake, usually involving gangs to some degree; but they're not news except to locals and those who are friends or relatives of people involved.

It's a sad footnote in our society when we spend thousands of hours trying to figure out how to stop isolated events but brush off other, more common tragedies as too common to even consider, despite the likelihood that both situations share a common root cause.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Most reported mass shootings.

There are a lot of shootings that never make much of a splash in the papers because the victims are often also criminals or those who associate with the same.

And there are a lot of shootings and other violence in other countries that just simply never gets reported.

[Nekojin]

Seems to happen about every three months in the US. How often in Norway?

Someone addressed this in that other forum I visit. Although they have a lower rate of mass murders per year (something like 1 per 10 years), they have a higher chance of death to a mass murderer, because of the huge disparity in population between the countries.

Statistics. It's all in how you massage the numbers.

[Zod]

And there are a lot of shootings and other violence in other countries that just simply never gets reported.

I suspect it does get reported, but only in the country's local press. Mass shootings tend to get reported across the world because they're big news, but a random guy getting knifed in Hammersmith is unlikely to make much of an impact on CNN. I only know that a load of people got killed in Chicago a few months back because I read about it on an American news website.

There are a lot of shootings that never make much of a splash in the papers because the victims are often also criminals or those who associate with the same.

What we normally get plastered all over the news across the nation are the planned events. There are spontaneous acts of mayhem and violence that break out regularly, leaving dead and wounded in their wake, usually involving gangs to some degree; but they're not news except to locals and those who are friends or relatives of people involved.

It's a sad footnote in our society when we spend thousands of hours trying to figure out how to stop isolated events but brush off other, more common tragedies as too common to even consider, despite the likelihood that both situations share a common root cause.

Good point, I hadn't thought about gang wars : perhaps people care less because these events are criminal on criminal, rather then criminal on general public?

[Rapscallion]

Someone addressed this in that other forum I visit. Although they have a lower rate of mass murders per year (something like 1 per 10 years), they have a higher chance of death to a mass murderer, because of the huge disparity in population between the countries.

I'd like to see the workings on those numbers. I thought the US was in the top ten in homicide deaths on a per capita basis, or at least in the top ten percent. Maybe a higher chance of death to a mass murderer, but isn't that weighted by a lower chance of death by homicide overall?

I think I'd feel safer in a country where an incident like that might happen maybe twice in a lifetime, as opposed to where people start to get used to atrocities.

Many of my formative years were spent under the threat of the IRA's bombing campaign. After a bit you get on with life and it's just another day when it happens. It's not a good feeling when you realise you're just shrugging when it happens again.

Rapscallion

[Nekojin]

I suspect it does get reported, but only in the country's local press. Mass shootings tend to get reported across the world because they're big news, but a random guy getting knifed in Hammersmith is unlikely to make much of an impact on CNN. I only know that a load of people got killed in Chicago a few months back because I read about it on an American news website.

No, I mean that in many cases, it doesn't get reported at all.

When I was younger, I was a much bigger Japanophile than I am now. During that time, I learned a LOT about Japanese culture, and a few very interesting details about crime and law enforcement:

* Crimes committed by Yakuza tended to not get reported to the police, even when there are witnesses. The presumption is that the populace doesn't trust the police to protect them from the Yakuza. This makes sense, because:
* Crimes committed by Yakuza that were reported to the police tended to not be followed up on. That suggests that the police are afraid of the Yakuza, themselves.
* Rapes and molestations tended to go unreported, because the victims were ashamed of the incident. As a result, Japan looked like it had a phenomenally low rape per capita rate, when the truth was anything but.

Note that all three of these are improving over the past decade, but there's still a whole hell of a lot of things that never get reported to the police, or get "dropped" by the police. And I have no doubt that these situations are worse in less-developed countries like Vietnam, Ghana, and Laos.

I'd like to see the workings on those numbers. I thought the US was in the top ten in homicide deaths on a per capita basis, or at least in the top ten percent. Maybe a higher chance of death to a mass murderer, but isn't that weighted by a lower chance of death by homicide overall?

No more time for now. I'll try to cross-post the statistics later tonight.

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe a higher chance of death to a mass murderer, but isn't that weighted by a lower chance of death by homicide overall?

Yes, and probably.

As Nekojin said, statistics are all about how you phrase the question/result.

Also, however, when dealing with probability, there are often multiple answers for the same question, so whether you are more likely to suffer death by homicide in one country versus another isn't nearly as cut and dried as merely looking at the numbers themselves.

Not only is probability difficult for people to properly factor, but there are other issues that are very important to the question (such as related risk factors) that matter.

The real question is whether you are more likely to be the victim of random violence than targeted violence. If you are personally targeted by someone who intends to kill you, specifically, what country you live in is irrelevant. If you are a member of a gang, the likelihood that you're going to die by either murder or the victim of self-defense becomes incredibly high. Unfortunately, I don't know that anybody has ever compared statistics about specifically only incidents where the target was chosen at least partially at random.

I think I'd feel safer in a country where an incident like that might happen maybe twice in a lifetime, as opposed to where people start to get used to atrocities.

People aren't often rational, particularly when discussing where they make their homes.

I live where there are earthquakes. As an "act of god" death goes, they're pretty low down on the list of things likely to kill a person. Others live in places where the regular weather kills people annually and prefer that to the ghostly specter of "the big one" over here.

Different people can assign vastly different significance to the same risk factors.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

No, I mean that in many cases, it doesn't get reported at all.

When I was younger, I was a much bigger Japanophile than I am now. During that time, I learned a LOT about Japanese culture, and a few very interesting details about crime and law enforcement:

* Crimes committed by Yakuza tended to not get reported to the police, even when there are witnesses. The presumption is that the populace doesn't trust the police to protect them from the Yakuza. This makes sense, because:
* Crimes committed by Yakuza that were reported to the police tended to not be followed up on. That suggests that the police are afraid of the Yakuza, themselves.
* Rapes and molestations tended to go unreported, because the victims were ashamed of the incident. As a result, Japan looked like it had a phenomenally low rape per capita rate, when the truth was anything but.

Note that all three of these are improving over the past decade, but there's still a whole hell of a lot of things that never get reported to the police, or get "dropped" by the police. And I have no doubt that these situations are worse in less-developed countries like Vietnam, Ghana, and Laos.


No more time for now. I'll try to cross-post the statistics later tonight.

Much like the mob here in its heyday and still in some places now, the police are bought out by the Yakuza and things are overlooked. Some of it too is press control.

There is a lot of crime that happens here in Vegas that isn't reported on a national scale because they don't want to deter the tourists. Things are handled quickly, quietly, and hopefully don't involve Metro shooting anyone.

[protege]

Good point, I hadn't thought about gang wars : perhaps people care less because these events are criminal on criminal, rather then criminal on general public?

Maybe. I know here, there are quite a few gang-related shootings in certain areas in and around Pittsburgh. Most of the time, the reaction is "well, what do you expect? It's a ghetto." They're not the least bit concerned when one thug takes out another thug. One less asshole that they have to deal with. Unfortunate, but it is what it is. Compare that when someone (usually a child) is caught in the cross-fire. Then, and *only* then, do people get pissed. They write letters to the newspapers, flip out on TV reporters, hold vigils, etc. but nothing really changes.

Sure, the cops come, but many times...witnesses are afraid to come forward. Like the Yakuza, people are afraid of the thugs and other assholes in their areas. Then they turn around and complain about how nobody "does anything" about it. It's not just the "inner city" either--it happens in the 'burbs as well.

Most of this crap only makes the local news. Sure, it makes the front page of the newspaper, but that's it. Nobody outside of SW PA usually even hears about such things. Like others have said, I'm sure some things are purposely kept quiet...as to not disrupt the tourist trade.

[AdminAssistant]

Good point, I hadn't thought about gang wars : perhaps people care less because these events are criminal on criminal, rather then criminal on general public?

I saw an interesting thing on Facebook: If the shooter had been Arab or Muslim, he'd be called a terrorist. If he were Black or Hispanic, he'd be a thug or gang member. But, since he's white, he's mentally ill.

The two primary issues at the heart of the gang wars are race and class. The whiter and richer the shooter/victims are, the higher the level of media attention.

[Nekojin]

To touch on the statistics point from earlier:
Why people are over-reacting to the midnight movie massacre (Mathematically speaking)

The article points out that we've had 117 deaths due to spree shooting incidents in the past decade. Contrast against the past decade in Norway, where they've had... the 2011 attacks by Anders Breivik, which killed 77 people. By raw statistics, only 50% more people died in the US to terrorist/spree killings, but we have roughly 60 times the population. The math is easy enough, and is left as an exercise for the student.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'd like to see the workings on those numbers. I thought the US was in the top ten in homicide deaths on a per capita basis, or at least in the top ten percent.

not even close

map of the top ten countries for murder

rates are given per 100,000, the US rate was posted earlier, it 5.22 the lowest of the "top ten" is Uganda at 36.3, we're a long way from that

list of countries by intentional homicide rate

Lowest is Japan with 0.36, and Japan is very close to being a full on police state.

[crashhelmet]

To touch on the statistics point from earlier:
Why people are over-reacting to the midnight movie massacre (Mathematically speaking)

The article points out that we've had 117 deaths due to spree shooting incidents in the past decade. Contrast against the past decade in Norway, where they've had... the 2011 attacks by Anders Breivik, which killed 77 people. By raw statistics, only 50% more people died in the US to terrorist/spree killings, but we have roughly 60 times the population. The math is easy enough, and is left as an exercise for the student.

His numbers are flawed. From his own source, a wikipedia page:

This section does not include school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes, or mass murders that took place primarily in a domestic environment, which form their own categories. Cases where the primary motive for the murders was to facilitate or cover up another felony, like robbery, are also not included.

Which leaves out numbers for incidents like:
32 killed at Virginia tech in 2007
9 killed in Red lake, MN in 2009
13 killed at Ft. Hood in 2009

Add in those numbers and you have 171 murdered in the last decade, not 117. Who knows how many more he left out for his "report"

But they weren't the only casualties of those incidents. There were also 213 people wounded in all of those attacks that managed to survive.