Why don't they have the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007? This data seems to be missing what a lot of people would call "school shootings".
I think this is k-12 only data
Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
31–40 of 93 posts
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
well what about the idea that other countries adjusted their laws after such incidents and it made a difference in crime statistics?
I hate guns and I want them banned in America. But, crime goes up after gun bans https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-... I am okay with that because it spreads the violence but each instance of violence is less deadly. So for the sake of no school schootings, I will accept increase in general violence. Let's repeal the 2A.
Misleading graph! https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40697/did-the-u...
"Tthere are notes about anomalous events included in each year's numbers. Since the numbers are so low these can throw the graph off. In particular two large events which happened in previous years were reported for 2003 and 2017 respectively which accounts for their anomalous spikes.
2003 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman, one of the most prolific serial killers in history. While these killings happened over 25 years, they're recorded for 2003.
2017 includes 96 victims of Hillsborough which happened in 1989.
2001 includes 58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK.
2004 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay.
2006 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings.
2011 includes 12 victims of Derrick Bird."
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#33Perhaps they should do a case control study - places that had mass shootings vs places that didn’t? I’m pretty sure there have been no mass shootings at gun shows or gun clubs, I wonder if there might be some relationship there worth exploring?
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#34it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting. this seems weak. if shootings are rare events s…
Also, how come the incidence of these types of shootings are so much lower in other parts of the world if there is no policy that will help prevent them?
Excellent question. There can be many factors, among them:
- base rate of violent crime in general being lower
- lack of access to guns
- higher vigilance of school teachers
- more mixed rather than segregated environments
- more parental oversight and awareness of issues with children
- less stressful environment
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that because it is such a rare event, efficacy of any intervention is extremely hard to evaluate. So essentially whatever you do is guesswork. To put it simply: how's do you know if whatever you did has an effect instead of the numbers being a result of a random downswing? (You can know if you can know by employing Bayesian statistics - with these low rates you really cannot.)
well what about the idea that other countries adjusted their laws after such incidents and it made a difference in crime statistics?
Other countries are not defined by the idea that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#36Can someone say "Security Theater"? In cases like these I like to take the Freakonomics formula for risk, that outrage factors more into observed risk than actual danger. We're more worried about Terrorism than Heart Disease, even as we have far more control over the latter.
Terrorism and gun violence is and has always been about economic impact. 9/11 had more concentrated economic impact than heart disease ever will. If you think people are being overly emotional over these issues try to imagine a plausible reason why.
>9/11 had more concentrated economic impact than heart disease ever will.
And that was because of the misguided emotional response (i.e. invading countries which had nothing to do with it), not because of the event itself.
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that because it is such a rare event, efficacy of any intervention is extremely hard to evaluate. So essentially whatever you do is guesswork. To put it simply: how's do you know if whatever you did has an effect instead of the numbers being a result of a random downswing? (You can know if you can know by employing Bayesian statistics - with these low rates you really cannot.)
https://twitter.com/CoyoteToledo/status/966832602383552513 US: I'm on fire CANADA: jump in the water US: water won't work, i need more fire UK: we used water when we caught fire US: it won't work for us we like fire too much US: I'm burning AUSTRALIA: here is a video of water putting out fire US: *stuffs fire in pockets*
> CANADA: jump in the water
Canada has a comparably high-rate of gun ownership and yet a substantially lower murder rate. I've seen plenty of pissing and moaning on firearm forums about their restrictions, more severe than the US', but one could reasonably carry out a massacre up there just as much as one can in the states.
It's not the guns. It's us.
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#38Can someone say "Security Theater"? In cases like these I like to take the Freakonomics formula for risk, that outrage factors more into observed risk than actual danger. We're more worried about Terrorism than Heart Disease, even as we have far more control over the latter.
I like to ask my "ban the AR-15" friends how they feel about the TSA.
Why?
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#39Can someone say "Security Theater"? In cases like these I like to take the Freakonomics formula for risk, that outrage factors more into observed risk than actual danger. We're more worried about Terrorism than Heart Disease, even as we have far more control over the latter.
I like to ask my "ban the AR-15" friends how they feel about the TSA.
I agree that much of what the TSA does is security theater, but... at least we got that? It shows that we as a society cared enough to "put on a show" of protecting ourselves from terrorism.
I welcome more research on effective ways to reduce gun violence, but unfortunately ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) ) researchers have been prevented from doing so.
The clear, most effective way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns. (cf. every other developed nation.) However, the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment seems to make that difficult.
Re: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s
#40Can someone say "Security Theater"? In cases like these I like to take the Freakonomics formula for risk, that outrage factors more into observed risk than actual danger. We're more worried about Terrorism than Heart Disease, even as we have far more control over the latter.
It's precisely because we have far more control over heart disease that we do not fear it. I can accept getting heart disease—maybe it was my fault?—much more readily that being actively, senselessly, killed by someone else. Terrorists know this too, which is why definitionally terrorism is meant to induce fear by way of its unpredictability. You wrote "security theater" to imply that we shouldn't attempt to address…
Logically, it seems more practical to worry about things you can control, than those that you can't.
"There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power or our will."
-Epictetus