Why The Supposed Rise Of Mass Shootings Is A Myth http://www.businessinsider.com/america-isnt-becoming-more-violent-2014-6/comments en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Thu, 25 Dec 2014 02:31:55 -0500 Pamela Engel http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539f021f6bb3f77f08726c00 hammerman Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:41:35 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539f021f6bb3f77f08726c00 LOL "The red line is victims, and the blue line is incidents. As you can see, there doesn't seem to be any clear trend" Really you cant see a trend? the 1st dot in 1976 is at 81.....the 2011 one is at 121" This would be called an upward trend in victims thus going against your entire article. Also if you look at the entire context of that FBI graph on the FBI's website. It shows that that mass shootings defined as one or more gunman killing 3 more people are up about 1000%. Guns still claim the most lives in suicides and homicides. I understand media's role in playing up the drama and the fear they instill, however they will do that with anything. How about we stay focused and find a way to reduce the ability for one to walk into a gun show without a background check of FOID card and walk out with as many bullets and guns as they want because it was a "show". Or how about we have United Kingdom laws were technically civilians cannot even carry small concealable weapons. Just manual shotguns/rifles for hunting. How about we have laws put in place where in order to purchase a gun you have to prove you own a gun safe, improper storage will result in confiscation. The UK even has a snitch incentive where one can report someone who isn't storing a gun properly; the local police check it out; if it's true the snitch gets paid. While us semi-retarded Americans are debating on how many guns you can buy a month and yelling about everything else that may be used in a homicide to distract from the deadly intended use of guns. To Kill. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539dff04eab8eaf36a08c6a8 Rocketdog Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:16:04 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539dff04eab8eaf36a08c6a8 Really? Just spend some quality time on Google....There needs to be a fair comparison. For example, Canada's population is roughly the same size as the State of California. Therefore, you cannot compare across the board the murder statistics of a country with 32 million with a country that has a population of 350 million. Unless the smaller country has extremely violent, out of control people, the larger country will have more shootings, murders, knifings, etc by virtue of its much, much larger population. Here is some information: the first school shooting in Canada occurred in 1884, the last in March, 2014. In between, there have been at least 15 school shootings , all in a country with a much, much smaller population than the US. Additionally, if you Google the 10 worst school massacres in the world, <a href="http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacres/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacres/</a> - Canada makes the list with one, but also Germany (2), Israel (1), UK (1) Chechen (1) and the US (4). However, all the countries listed had much smaller populations than the US , so again, one would expect the US to make more incidents. In fact, if you add all these countries' population together (except for the US) the total is roughly 190 million, nearly half the population of the US. As I said, one would expect more events occurring in the US, because of the sheer size of its population compared to the other 5 countries. My intent is in no way to minimize the horrific acts of individuals who go to ANY school and shoot defenseless kids. I am just trying to show that the problem exists all over the world, in countries where people are allowed to have guns and in those where they are not. The reason I am trying to show that the US is not the only one with a problem, and that if one extrapolates the population size of the US one would find that the US is not that more "violent" than many other countries in the world, is that taking guns away from individuals is not necessarily the correct answer, but diagnosing AND TREATING mental illness is. Even if we stop law abiding citizens in the US from owning guns, the problem will not go away, as mentally ill people will then use manufactured bombs, knives, machetes, axes, or poison to kill. The information I have given relates only to guns - there are also many deaths due to stabbings and poisons all over the world, including the US. Recently in China (march 2014) knife attacks by murderers in a train station left approximately 33 dead and 143 injured (China does not allow the average person to own a gun, and report are usually "sanitized" to provide the information China wants the world to see). In fact, the Santa Barbara killer Peter Rodger killed 3 people with a knife before going to the school and shooting 6 people. The only way to stop this senseless violence and horror is not to ban guns or knives, it is to find and effectively treat mentally ill people. Most if not all people that senselessly slaughter innocents have a history of bizarre and alarming behavior that others notice (sometimes for many years) before they commit murders. We need to tighten the safety net to protect society from the seriously mentally ill, while giving the mentally ill treatment they need. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539d49ba69bedd8d7f3e53b3 wiltedrosemarybush Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:22:34 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539d49ba69bedd8d7f3e53b3 Given that the vast majority of mass shootings (90+%, at least) are committed by leftists, how about this for a "common sense" rule: anyone who has ever been registered as a Democrat or other left wing political group is prohibited from owning firearms. That would solve an awful lot of our crime problems right there. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539d482c69bedd2b783e53b2 wiltedrosemarybush Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:15:56 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539d482c69bedd2b783e53b2 For starters, you are conflating suicides with homicides. It is a well documented fact that anyone wanting to commit suicide will not be deterred by lack of a firearm. Jurisdictions that have banned firearms have seen a corresponding increase in suicides by other means, leaving the overall level the same (parenthetically it is interesting to note that Japan, which effectively bans all weapons, not just firearms, has an overall combined murder and suicide rate higher than that of the U.S.). Your inclusion of suicides to inflate the total in this little numbers game is at best ignorant and at worst duplicitous. Chew on that. Going beyond this, though, how is a gun "less lethal", exactly? Don't get me wrong, it's tiny bit true, but I would actually consider stabbing wounds from a large knife, for example, to be more dangerous. Indeed, three of the Isla Vista rampage victims were actually stabbed to death, a fact you and others go to great lengths to downplay. But there is a larger problem here. You, and the "literature" you cite, erroneously assume a 1:1 replacement in terms of crime; in other words, guns will magically be replaced by, say, knives which in your world are "less lethal" (Har - I should stab you a few times with one of the replica mediaeval daggers in my collection and then you can tell me how "less lethal" it is - idiot) thus, in your mind, reducing the overall death rate. In a word, bullsh*t. Since it is well established fact that private gun ownership deters a vast amount of crime, what will really happen is that violent crime and assault will SKYROCKET, and your overall murder rate INCREASE, even though the death rate per violent assault might drop somewhat. Getting your head smashed in with a hammer or baseball bat does not make you any less dead then if you were simply shot in the head. Also, what makes you think bad guys won't be able to get guns? I know to a technological illiterate such as yourself you no doubt believe that guns only exist because the evil NRA Gun Fairy flies down and sprinkles them unto rednecks across the land. The reality is quite different - guns have been around since at least the last half of the 14th century, and pretty much every design feature you see on every evil looking "assault weapon" (a stupid and inaccurate term, really - a thrown brick could be an "assault weapon", after all) was developed before 1900. Put another way, every feature on the M-16, with the exception of certain materials details (polymers, &c.) was invented in the Victorian Era. Looked at yet another way, Queen Victoria's soldiers (late in her reign, admittedly) could have had AK-47's! All the technological components were there. I bring this up because, bluntly, anyone who thinks that 19th century tech cannot fairly easily be replicated in the early 21st century in a garage workshop is so terminally stupid that they and their entire bloodline should be euthanized for reasons of genetic purity alone... http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539cf545eab8ea7f13a4271e Misterguyyy Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:22:13 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539cf545eab8ea7f13a4271e Are you implying that countries with gun rights should not be compared to countries without them, because countries with gun rights will naturally have a greater incidence of firearm homocides? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539caa62ecad04a273a4271c Jakob Stagg Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:02:42 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539caa62ecad04a273a4271c If they wished to reduce violence, they would focus on violence, rather than law abiding gun owners. If they gave up their lies and ignorance, they wouldn't have their fear. They must love it. They create so much. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539c96cf6bb3f7d6600d71f4 Actual Scientist Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:39:11 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539c96cf6bb3f7d6600d71f4 If you examine who is actually doing the shooting, it's not Euro-Americans. It's African Americans -- 12% of the population but over 50% of the murderers -- and Mexican-Americans (or just plain Mexicans, here illegally) who murder at more than twice the rate of Euro-Americans. Euro-Americans -- despite widespread access to guns -- commit murders at rates essentially identical to Europeans in Europe. The US doesn't have a gun problem. It has a problem with subcultures that use guns and other weapons to solve interpersonal conflicts. Banning guns is not going to stop this. We've banned drugs for nearly a century now, and they're more available and affordable than ever. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539c44356bb3f717390d71eb Dave Connors Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:46:45 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539c44356bb3f717390d71eb If you factor out the inner city Chicago's and Baltimore's, the rate drops dramatically. Factor out mental health driven homicide and what do you have? The majority of honest firearm owners who are regulated to unreasonable levels. With stop and frisk and restrictions for extreme mentally instability, I think homicides would be compare favorable to any country. The rate of violent crime in the UK is much higher since taking firearms from society. Concentrate on the dishonest and where the crime is. More laws on honest people is a fail. Mandatory time for gun possession has failed because it is plea bargained away. Prosecutors do not have the resources to handed the increase in court time to face criminals fighting mandatory hard time. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bbd05ecad04b55d19c0cc Al Baydough Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:09:57 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bbd05ecad04b55d19c0cc Way to rock the logical fallacies. Private US citizens own more guns than any other nation on Earth yet despite all these guns they can't stop the shootings and massacres. There goes your argument. In Florida crazies are using the Stand Your Ground laws to make excuses for killing unarmed civilians. Both Florida and Texas have pretty high gun violence homicide rates as well. Both are higher than the national average. You made nothing but rookie mistakes with your inane comment. Do you always just make shit up? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bbb0e69bedd707319c0cf Al Baydough Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:01:34 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bbb0e69bedd707319c0cf Again, interesting that you argue standards by making comparisons to those worse off and with lower standards instead of those that raise the bar. Apparently you get a kick out of racing for last place. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bba90eab8ea603ab8bbc5 Al Baydough Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:59:28 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bba90eab8ea603ab8bbc5 The point is that if you have to compare your nation to those that are worse off to make an argument you already defeated your own purpose. Do you rank an athlete's performance on how he/she matches up with those at the bottom or those at the top? Get it? You're not very bright. The US is one of the most dangerous countries to be a citizen in. This one fact alone is proof enough we are far from the best nation on Earth. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bb27f6bb3f70a36b68717 The Keeper of the Key to the Locks Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:25:03 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539bb27f6bb3f70a36b68717 Has hell frozen over? Did the sun rise in the West this morning? I did a double-take when I realized that I read this article on Business Insider, and not on Drudge! Like at least one other commenter noted, this is too little, too late. The LSM will continue with the theme of the ever "rising" rate of mass shootings. because it fits their agenda. In reality, it is no different than before, but with instant communication all over the world, we can now find out about almost anything (but NOT "everything") in near real-time. When the story is "big", the continual 24-7 coverage through countless outlets makes the story seem more important than it really is. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7e78ecad04d12a19c0cc childofGod Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:43:04 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7e78ecad04d12a19c0cc I seriously doubt the author did any math, but rather relied on information from other sources. At a glance (without the exact numbers) I would tend to agree with you. If you stop the graph in, say 2006, though, it looks pretty stable. So the endpoint sometimes throw this type of graph off. More interestingly, Figure 1 shows total homicide deaths much lower over time. I've never really understood why we freak out over deaths in groups (airline crash compared to the same number killed in car crashes that day, for example) and accept the one-by-one homicides/suicides. The point the author was making, I think, is that the statistics do not support the information sent out by one anti-gun group. Reader and buyer, BEWARE! Or in other words, never check your brain cells before you read a graph. I spent 25 years trying to explain how easily the media, politicians, and advertisers convince us of untrue things through the use of misleading graphs. Good catch, by the way. I think you're the only one on here to mention it. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7a8aeab8ea604fb8bbc5 hmm Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:26:18 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7a8aeab8ea604fb8bbc5 Correct. Remove guns and reduce gun related statistics. A murderer may still be a murderer, but with less lethal means available -- or when lethal means are made significantly more difficult to obtain over a long period of time (i.e. not overnight given that many unregistered guns are in circulation) -- it stands to reason and is supported in the literature that there may be less murderers. Actually, as of 2012, there are roughly equal car deaths per day in the US as there are gun deaths per day in the US. Chew on that. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7a5feab8ea4a4eb8bbcd common42sense Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:25:35 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7a5feab8ea4a4eb8bbcd Actually its a bit under 60% but still a large portion of the total. The big problem is the NRA refuses to help put together some sense rules to help. I think if they did issue would eventually fade. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7991ecad047e1819c0cc hahaha Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:22:09 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b7991ecad047e1819c0cc Isolated occurrences are irrelevant. While it received considerable media attention, it was one instance in years. There are 85 gun deaths per day in the US, and that is what any discussion on firearm prevalence and homicide/suicide rate concerns. Mass shootings are only relevant because the media covers them. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b6ad469beddea3119c0ce Mr Happy Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:19:16 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b6ad469beddea3119c0ce I didn't state that it was necessarily achievable, or ignored the fact that there are violent deaths that aren't attributed to guns. My whole point was that within the context of this article saying that one side is exaggerating the number hardly diminishes the problem. Ignore my last sentence above and just consider the first two. However, if you want to do comparisons then compare the number of mass shootings in the US before and after Sandy Hook elementary with the number of mass shootings in Norway before and after Utoya island. Whatever way you show the numbers I think you'd be hard pressed to say that any of it is acceptable. The only acceptable number to me is zero. Do I think we'll ever see that anywhere in the world? No, I don't, but articles like this shouldn't be quibbling over the numbers. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b68de69bedddf3119c0ce CubeJockey Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:10:54 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b68de69bedddf3119c0ce All this horseshit about both sides compromising... I just do not understand. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the people's right to bear arms. That is our starting point and that is the side that does not need to compromise. Any gains by the anti-gunners is obtained by a compromise by the 2nd Amendment. The other side never compromises. Ever. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b659369bedd712819c0cc CubeJockey Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:56:51 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b659369bedd712819c0cc And a country with more cars on its roads is more likely to have children dying in automobile accidents. Statistics never lie and liars love statistics. More people die in car accidents on a daily basis. Remove cars from society a save some lives. Remove guns and perhaps you will save a few lives but a murderer will still be a murderer - just one with a different weapon. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b64296bb3f72a0cb68726 wut but how!? Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:50:49 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b64296bb3f72a0cb68726 This can't be!!!! What is CNN going to cover 24/7 now!? Actual news? Well I never..... http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b63cc69bedd5c1919c0d4 mydogmaincludes Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:49:16 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b63cc69bedd5c1919c0d4 Norway. Strict gun laws. 2011. Person sets off bombs, shoots, kills 69 people and injuring 110. No one could stop him b/c armed police couldn't get to the site quickly enough. Now here is one of the strongest arguments a pro gun person has: Would this happen in a carry state like FL or TX? No. So counter that argument. With rational arguments and refrain from the name calling..... http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b62d9ecad046e1b19c0cc thatisanadultcomment Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:45:13 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b62d9ecad046e1b19c0cc Name calling. That's a great way to set an example of how to resolve conflicts and get the other side to listen to you. Let's keep things civil here. No wonder kids act badly if the parents/adults don't display some patience, understanding and common sense and do not resort to name calling those others who don't share their exact same opinion. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b625869bedd921519c0d1 hardtogettozero Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:43:04 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b625869bedd921519c0d1 We can reduce the # of wackos who pick schools to do their deranged acts, but getting that to zero, that's like saying the drug war will win one day. Let's be realistic here. The UK still has homicides even with 0 guns. And didn't Norway have a horrible mass shooting event - that's a 0 gun country. So the 0 gun advocates can explain those scenarios. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5ea1eab8ea2366b8bbce Mr Happy Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:27:13 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5ea1eab8ea2366b8bbce So according to this article there's no rise in the number of mass shootings. I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean things are A OK. The only acceptable number is zero shootings of any kind. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5caeeab8ead363b8bbc5 Brian M Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:18:54 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5caeeab8ead363b8bbc5 It should be noted, that approximately 2/3 of those 85 deaths are suicides. Suicide is what puts our gun death rate into the stratosphere. When you change gun deaths to intentional homicide, our numbers look quite different. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5a04ecad04326c3123a3 ehem? Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:07:32 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5a04ecad04326c3123a3 Suicides are roughly 67% of gun deaths in the US. Countless studies demonstrate that when lethal means are made more available, e.g. having more access to firearms, suicide rates increase. In other words, having more guns around means more suicide. This is demonstrated in many, many scientific studies. Those that attempt suicide by less lethal means, i.e. not by firearm, are less likely to succeed in their attempt to a significant degree. Those that attempt and do not succeed then go on to die by other means in 90% of cases, which is also shown in the scientific literature. In other words, by not having access to guns as readily, one attempting to commit suicide will be less likely to succeed, and thus will be far more likely to not commit suicide and will die by non-suicide cause. Reduced gun prevalence is found to colocalize with reduced suicide rates, as demonstrated in many studies. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b59396bb3f7dc673123a7 Michael Blackburn Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:04:09 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b59396bb3f7dc673123a7 Wow. The author is REALLY bad at math. Take a regression tool to that red line. I believe you'll see something like a 50% increase, from something in the 70ish range to the 110 range, while the number of incidents remains more-or-less constant. Math says you're wrong. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b593969beddaf6cd29c53 Michael Blackburn Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:04:09 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b593969beddaf6cd29c53 Wow. The author is REALLY bad at math. Take a regression tool to that red line. I believe you'll see something like a 50% increase, from something in the 70ish range to the 110 range, while the number of incidents remains more-or-less constant. Math says you're wrong. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b58fceab8ea0051f6f6f5 hahaha Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:03:08 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b58fceab8ea0051f6f6f5 You're a plain moron. The countries chosen for comparison are obviously countries with most similarities to the US on social and economic variables. Whee indeed, for an under educated moron. Whatever. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b57c6eab8ea2f53f6f6f0 gangproblem Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:57:58 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b57c6eab8ea2f53f6f6f0 I think we can all admit the US has a larger problem with violent gangs and drugs as well. So to knock down the homicides, we can focus our efforts on reducing gang violence, starting with acknowledging that comparing nations on a single criteria (gun deaths) isn't giving one a big picture. Should we not view the 'problem' by defining the big picture as the starting point? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b55b6ecad04c7613123a2 Pat Hudgins Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:49:10 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b55b6ecad04c7613123a2 More individuals are killed by the "silent bullets" provided by the drug companies and they are FDA approved, than by guns. Our government really isn't that concerned by gun violence, but rather by the ever increasing discontent of our citizens, as they take more of our rights away and take more of our hard earned cash for their ever increasing requirement to transfer your money to them and their cronies. They want your firearms, so you become impotent, as they destroy everything this Country was founded about. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5571eab8eaae41f6f6f5 Jimbone Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:48:01 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5571eab8eaae41f6f6f5 I see. We're excluding places with much higher gun violence rates because they don't fit our narrative. Cool. As long as we are making up our own classifications, I can't for a minute consider those PEERS you named because they have virtually no gun rights. Ergo, they are not 'comparable' to a country that does have them. Whee!!! What fun! http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b54feeab8ea7742f6f6f0 Brian M Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:46:06 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b54feeab8ea7742f6f6f0 I would argue that from a demographic and society makeup that the United States , while economically more developed, is more similar to Brazil and Mexico than it is to Canada and Australia. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5476eab8ea2d43f6f6f5 Jimbone Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:43:50 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5476eab8ea2d43f6f6f5 I can read just fine thanks, not an idiot as you assert. YOU defined comparable states to fit your definition and meaning. The original post did not. But on the bright side, at least you're with yourself. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b546c69bedd9c64d29c53 hahaha Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:43:40 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b546c69bedd9c64d29c53 The point he's trying to make is rather simple for anyone not blinded by irrational adherence to principles over scientific assessment: The US is the only country among its PEERS (re: Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden, etc., etc. -- NOT Brazil, Iraq, Mexico, Afghanistan, Pakistan) with a gun problem. But don't let facts cloud your dogma. Carry on. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b52736bb3f71f533123a8 Lionbear Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:35:15 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b52736bb3f71f533123a8 Also, it looks like the graph ends in 2011. I'm pretty sure there has been a significant spike since then. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5177ecad04a3483123a0 Im with Idiot^ Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:31:03 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5177ecad04a3483123a0 Reading comprehension man....he said "comparable states", meaning they are developed countries like America and have similar standards of living. Brazil and Mexico while similar in size (still a stretch) are still developing countries.... http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5105eab8ea3a3bf6f6f0 Lionbear Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:29:09 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b5105eab8ea3a3bf6f6f0 Seems to me that if crime (including gun crime) has decreased overall, and mass shootings have stayed constant, then even though mass shootings haven't increased, they have become more of a problem. Another way to put it is that almost all crime has decreased with the exception of mass shootings. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4fc369bedda951d29c53 Jimbone Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:23:47 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4fc369bedda951d29c53 Yep, and way lower than Mexico and Brazil. What's the point you're trying to make exactly? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4ebb69bedd1b44d29c59 hmm Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:19:23 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4ebb69bedd1b44d29c59 Correct. Mass shootings are simply played up by the media because, for lack of better way to put it, it "gets clicks". People like traumatic news. People like to hear about and talk about terrible/exciting incidents like that. Ignorant folks like to use it as an agenda, one way or another. Here's a fact though: Mass incidents aside, gun deaths in the US remain at a flat 85/day -- most of any developed nation in the world by a long shot. A child is ~5 times more likely to die to a firearm in the US than in any other developed country. Gun prevalence is correlated with higher homicide and suicide, as corroborated by numerous scientific studies on firearm death & injury in the US. The gun lobby successfully persuaded Congress to defund the CDC and NIH for firearm death and injury research over a decade or two ago, due to the unanimous findings in these studies. Appease both sides. Find a solution to the public health problem of gun deaths and injury without pissing off the 2nd Amendment advocates. A compromise is necessary -- one that requires cooperation on both sides of the aisle directed by scientific research and sound, fair policy supported by the research. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4e946bb3f701473123a9 fredlled Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:18:44 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4e946bb3f701473123a9 Was just explaining to daughter how violent crime has gone down in US but reporting has gone up. She brought up non-reported stories on TV news that she sees on Internet (homeless spike issue). Explained big money controlling news and stories reported, trying to influence public through fear. She's 13. I can't do much about world she's growing up in but I can help her open her eyes to how the game is played. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4dce69bedd8c44d29c53 Jimbone Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:15:26 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4dce69bedd8c44d29c53 Well, a little late but at least someone is acknowledging that the hyperbolic report from Everytown was bunk. Too bad the story was already reported as gospel and won't be followed up with a correction or update by the mainstream outlets that broadcast it. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4d80ecad04423b3123a3 jamesxxxxxxx Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:14:08 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/539b4d80ecad04423b3123a3 Still way higher than in comparable states like Canada and Australia.