Study: U.S. Ranks 64th on List of Countries with Mass Shootings

[kyredneck]

Study: U.S. Ranks 64th on List of Countries with Mass Shootings

"...A study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows that the United States ranks 64th in the per capita frequency on the list of countries that witnessed mass shootings from 1998 to 2015.

The study also found that while the U.S. constitutes 4.6 percent of the world’s population, “it makes up less than 1.15 percent of the mass public shooters” and less than 1.5 percent of their murders.

CPRC used the study’s summary to explain: “Over the 18 years from 1998 to 2015, our list contains 2,354 attacks and at least 4,880 shooters outside the United States and 53 attacks and 57 shooters within our country. … Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.”..."

Hooduhthunk considering the media coverage here.....

 

[carpro]

Can't be true. This has to be NRA propaganda.

 

[InTheLight]

What are they using for the definition of a mass shooting? I looked at the article and also the study summary but saw no definition.

 

[rlvaughn]

I opened the article itself. It says, for example, for page 3:

We use the FBI’s traditional definition of mass public shootings.

On page 4 they further explain:

The FBI (2013) only includes shootings in “public places” such as commercial areas (malls, stores, and other businesses); schools and colleges; open spaces; government properties (including military bases and civilian offices); houses of worship; and healthcare facilities.

The FBI excludes “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence,” occurred in the commission of another ongoing crime such as robbery, or arose primarily from self-defense — primarily a domestic dispute or barricade/hostage situation.

From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” had been “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015). In 2013, the definition was changed to “three or more killings.” Many academics have continued to use the four or more definition, and that is the definition that we will use here. There is also an important practical reason for using the four or more deaths definition in that it is already hard enough to find news stories in many parts of the world for cases involving 4 or more people killed, and thatis especially true when we go back further in time.

 

[Mikey]

not something to shout about.

Who are the 63 other countries? any of them considered "1st world"?

 

[rlvaughn]

To see the countries, go to this page, click on "available to be downloaded here," and then download it to your computer or open it in your browser. The list starts on page 9. There are two columns, one which lists "Number of Attacks per 100,000 People" (US is 64) and one which lists "Number of People Killed per 100,000 People" (US is 65).

I'm not sure which countries qualify as 1st world, but glancing through the list those ahead of us who might be considered "1st world" include Finland, France, Israel, Norway, South Africa and Switzerland. Not sure where India and Russia fall in the 1st to 4th world categories, but they are large nations that also have worse problems than the U.S., based on this study.

 

[Mikey]

To see the countries, go to this page, click on "available to be downloaded here," and then download it to your computer or open it in your browser. The list starts on page 9. There are two columns, one which lists "Number of Attacks per 100,000 People" (US is 64) and one which lists "Number of People Killed per 100,000 People" (US is 65).

I'm not sure which countries qualify as 1st world, but glancing through the list those ahead of us who might be considered "1st world" include Finland, France, Israel, Norway, South Africa and Switzerland. Not sure where India and Russia fall in the 1st to 4th world categories, but they are large nations that also have worse problems than the U.S., based on this study.

Only had a quick look,

Norway, Finland and Switzerland and France are useful to compare with the US. (South Africa has declined significantly since the 1990's, isn't it the murder or car jacking capital of the world?) and the others are generally failed/lawless nations that have fought a civil war/insurgency, not great to say the US is better than those, I should hope so.

 

[carpro]

not something to shout about.

Who are the 63 other countries? any of them considered "1st world"?

You ask the question, but didn't bother to look for yourself. Hmmm...sounds like your mind is made up that it's not worthy of your attention in the first place.

 

[Mikey]

You ask the question, but didn't bother to look for yourself. Hmmm...sounds like your mind is made up that it's not worthy of your attention in the first place.

I did ask rather than reading the report my self, not because I made up my mind but because I couldn't be bothered reading through pages of a report. From your yo post I assume you think I'm some liberal who thinks by banning guns will somehow make America safer, this is wrong.

However, comparing America to the Yemen, South Africa, or CAR is fool hardy. These countries are lawless ( or close too, often entire areas are too dangerous for even the military to patrol, never mind Police)

I do not see a benefit in saying there are 63 other countries that have higher public shootings, when we see the calibre of these countries. However showing that, Finland, Norway etc are higher is beneficial as these are seen as economically/socially equal to the US and shows the US is not an anomaly.

 

[carpro]

I did ask rather than reading the report my self, not because I made up my mind but because I couldn't be bothered reading through pages of a report. .

If you can't be "bothered" to read the subject matter, I suggest you don't "bother" to reply...

until you can be "bothered" enough to to actually give an "informed" opinion.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Mikey]

If you can't be "bothered" to read the subject matter, I suggest you don't "bother" to reply...

until you can be "bothered" enough to to actually give an "informed" opinion.

Just a suggestion.

fair.

 

[carpro]

I opened the article itself. It says, for example, for page 3:

The FBI (2013) only includes shootings in “public places” such as commercial areas (malls, stores, and other businesses); schools and colleges; open spaces; government properties (including military bases and civilian offices); houses of worship; and healthcare facilities.

The FBI excludes “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence,” occurred in the commission of another ongoing crime such as robbery, or arose primarily from self-defense — primarily a domestic dispute or barricade/hostage situation.

On page 4 they further explain:

That kind of explains why Mexico's stats look so good.

 

[Mikey]

If you can't be "bothered" to read the subject matter, I suggest you don't "bother" to reply...

until you can be "bothered" enough to to actually give an "informed" opinion.

Just a suggestion.

okay I have read it.

it is a good report, and it does show that America with its right to guns is not any worse off in relation to mass shootings. And it showed America in comparison to western nations which good.

But my original point still stands.

 

[carpro]

okay I have read it.

it is a good report, and it does show that America with its right to guns is not any worse off in relation to mass shootings. And it showed America in comparison to western nations which good.

But my original point still stands.

Actually, my first thought when I saw the title was a lot of what we call 3rd world countries have to be included in the comparison. However, I believe that that the picture is not as bleak as anti gun factions would have everyone believe, even when compared with more settled and stable western countries.

And then when one considers the accessibility of guns,and pure number of them in possession of the public in this country, as compared to other western countries, it points out just how responsible Americans are, overall, with our firearms.