Interesting read on where the US actually rates with respect to mass shootings

Been a whole lot of misinformation and misrepresentation going on for a very long time on the subject apparently.

Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States.

When Lankford’s data is revised, the relationship between gun ownership rates and mass public shooters disappears.

How could that be? One possibility is that guns don’t just enable mass shooters; gun owners can also deter and prevent such shootings. Another is that culture — not gun ownership — is a bigger factor in shootings.

The media should be wary of any researchers who fail to let others look at their data.

1 Like

Begin Source Attack Sequence in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

1 Like


John Lott? Where have I heard that name before…

Oh right.

In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used “Mary Rosh” as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[64] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself “the best professor I ever had”.

Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students[73][74] and that “Rosh” was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Lott has claimed that the “Rosh” review was written by his son and wife.[74]

Forgive me if I’m just a tad skeptical.

It’s good to be skeptical. The question is: Are his numbers wrong.

There we go…

Be as skeptical as you like. Show where he is in error if you can.

Have you read the study and looked at his data?

Believe it or not I had always had a problem with Lankford’s methodology. Going back to the old forum…Something just didn’t quite jive with his statistics. I got into an argument on twitter with a classmate of my son’s and she literally lambasted me about his stats being correct, when I couldn’t see how they made sense. How could the revered mathematician be incorrect and what did I know. I went back and found our Tweets. Everything that is article states were the arguments I made almost a year ago. How could Lankford possibly know about mass shootings in places in Africa, Asia and the like when many of these things occurred with no records of them happening. Much of it was correlational data that makes no difference. It is not hard to make correlational data say what ever you want. But this is no surprise to me. I always felt that Lankford fudged his stats to make his case. We shall see how this pans out. Just saying it is not a surprise. Those of us with statistical and data analysis backgrounds have learned to be suspicious of any study.

Do you think anyone is surprised that Iraq is the country his data shows has the highest number of “mass shooting” deaths per 100K/population?

I don’t know or particularly care how surprised anyone is.

Can you show where he’s wrong in any way in what he’s presented in that article or not?

1 Like

Have you read the actual study and looked at the data he used?

Are you just incapable of a straight answer?

It’s a really simple question… Have you read his study and looked at his data instead of relying on an article that supports your position?

As is this.

Can you show where he’s wrong in any way in what he’s presented in that article or not?

Why can’t you give a straight answer?

Did I miss a link to an actual study, in order to verify the conclusions of the article?

Here you go…

Have fun…

Okay, let’s start here… What years do the Lankford study cover and what years does the Lott study cover?

No let’s start with the question you keep dodging.

Can you show where he’s wrong in any way in what he’s presented in that article or not?