The editorial author writes:<p>> Using the traditional FBI definition, the EU and the U.S. each experienced 25 mass shootings during the first seven years of Obama’s presidency (January 2009 to December 2015).<p>where<p>> the FBI defines a mass public shooting as four or more deaths in a public place that are not part of some other crime, such as a robbery<p>Mother Jones has a list of US mass shootings from 1982-2016 at <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data" rel="nofollow">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-m...</a> .<p>I count 27 mass shootings in that time period.<p>> But other advanced countries such as France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic also came in above the U.S.<p>That's falls into the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" category. It is not statistically valid to make these comparisons.<p><a href="http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-the-Statistics-of-Mass-Shootings.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-th...</a> works through the problem using a better statistical model, and comes to the conclusion that the US rate per capita is about 4x that of the OECD average. I will quote the conclusion from that piece:<p>> To get meaningful information from data concerning mass shootings, it is necessary to be aware of statistical fluctuations that result from an insufficient numbers of incidents. Once that is done, it becomes obvious that the rate of mass shootings in the United States is significantly higher than the other OECD countries.<p>> Of course, this isn't an academic exercise. Nobody will be surprised to learn that there is political motivation behind these attempts to demonstrate that the United States doesn't have horrendous incidences of mass shootings and other gun crimes. If the United States has levels of gun violence comparable with the rest of the world, there is certainly no need for gun-safety legislation.<p>> Our political arena is open enough to debate these issues. But the debate should not involve the abuse of statistics. If people are opposed to gun-safety legislation, they should own the consequences of that opposition rather than try to hide those consequences behind a bogus interpretation of statistics.<p>> Actual lives are at stake.
Grrr. If you adjust for population of course the top places in the list will be dominated by small populations who've had a particularly bad time recently.
Let's just ban anything that can hurt anyone. Legislation will solve everything.<p>I'm not "pro-gun", I'm pro-freedom, or pro-rights. Rights and freedoms come with sacrifices. Giving up your rights for a false sense of security is naive.<p>Setting aside the infringement of rights topic for a moment, focusing on the tool of destruction is never going to work. There is a much deeper, and more complex problem at work here. We need to identify and understand it. Simplified talking points for political purposes make me sick. As a nation we are smarter than this, so why does it perpetuate?<p>Statistics don't matter, for either side, "gun-control" isn't going to solve the problem. It isn't even <i>part</i> of the solution.<p>Think about how ridiculous it sounds to ban all cars and pressure cookers...<p>"Shall not be infringed..." can not be taken lightly.