PolitiFact throws a little cold water on President Obama’s claim about the U. S.’s alleged high rate of mass killings. As it happens both Finland and Norway have much higher incidences of mass killings than we do per 100,000 population. Our rate is about the same as Switzerland’s. Given Switzerland’s very high rate of gun possession I’m surprised Switzerland’s isn’t higher.
In a country of 310 million people you’re going to have a lot of just about everything, including crazy people. Or people who are just plain evil. In a country of 310 million people that has wall-to-wall television news coverage it will seem as though a lot more horrible things happen.
It’s not about the rate of gun violence or mass killings. It’s simply about controlling the narrative for political gain. They don’t give a fuck about all the people getting shot in Chicago all the time because that doesn’t really resonate like this kind of event does.
Don’t tell the comment section at OTB that….
Actually, I’ve written quite a bit on this subject. Mass killings are actually pretty rare. They don’t account for most of the homicides just a small fraction. In terms of the homicide rate when you consider only homicides perpetrated by whites our homicide rate isn’t much different from that of most European countries.
And the homicide rate among rural blacks is about the same as among whites so the difference can’t be explained solely on the basis of race. You can’t explain our high homicide rate without taking the high rate of homicide among urban blacks into account and high rates of gun ownership don’t account for the difference, even when adjusted for income.
Dave,
You are not reading the right statistics. According to Wonkblog, we’ve had a mass killing almost every single day this year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/shooting-in-oregon-11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-america/
I’m not on Obama’s side of the gun control issue but I can see a lot of reasons to critique the Politifact ruling. The number of incidents seems much more relevant than the number of victims, and on that metric the President’s statement was unequivocally true, even when adjusted for population.
I think the better argument against the statements that Obama has made is that he’s demagoguing about the incidents that are still quite rare (even if more common than in other countries) while completely neglecting to mention of the type of gun violence that is ubiquitous in certain parts of the country. Added to that, of course, is the question of whether gun control laws have any positive effect.
Andy:
The article you linked catalogues 50 mass shootings over the last decade. In a country of 310 million that counts as rare. The articles I’ve seen that arrive at a mass shooting per day count any shooting incident in which more than two people are shot as a mass shooting. That doesn’t meet the FBI’s definition. Under its definition between 2000 and 2013, a period of fourteen years, there were about 60 “active shooter” incidents, as the FBI designates them.
A recent WP article, the one I assume you’re referring to, uses an idiosyncratic definition to arrive at their one a day figure.
Do I think there’s too much violence and too much gun violence in the United States? Yes. Do I think that the measures that are being proposed will do much about it? No. If we genuinely want to reduce violence, we’re going to need to take a much more broadly-based approach that includes some gun control, changes in how we deal with the mentally ill, economic policy that results in more jobs being created, changes in immigration policy, and a host of other changes that I support but which are out of the mainstream in both parties.
When the Democrats had control of both houses of the Congress they did not enact gun control. When the Senate was still under the control of Democrats, the gun control bill that was introduced but did not pass did not have the support of the Senate leadership. IMO the reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Democratic leadership promotes this issue cynically, as a way of signalling that they’re on the right side of history and that they’re different from the Republicans. Pragmatically, there’s no difference.
And VOX has produced 17 charts that are supposed to make the case for the physical presence and number of guns as the culprit…….but only reinforces “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
PolitiFact’s method of looking at this was odd, given that question was frequency, not total deaths. Stanley is correct. On frequency, the word Obama used, we are leading the world. (USA! USA! USA!) Anyway, gun control is not a winning political issue. Those who oppose it are willing to spend a lot more money and time on the issue than those who favor it. We now have over 300 million (IIRC) guns floating around. Death by gun is just part of an accepted way of life in the US. That is not going to change. It will take a lot more killings than we have now to create the political will to try to change things.
Steve
That’s my point in one sentence. But I don’t think that spending money has anything to do with it. There are a lot of gun owners in the United States. Most of what any new restriction will do will only have an effect on law-abiding citizens, not on lawbreakers. Anyone who’s intent on getting a gun illegally will do so.
Spending money is a measure of their commitment. I suspect you would agree with the notion that a highly committed special interest group, even when it is in the minority, can succeed against lukewarm opposition or apathy and ignorance. Not only are they committed, they are paranoid. From my occasional days at the range, it is clear that people still think Obama is coming to personally take away their guns. God forbid you note that gun sales have nearly doubled while he has been president and the recent SCOTUS decisions have nearly all been pro-gun.
Steve
Is it possible those two things are connected? Also, are you suggesting bad faith on my part for not mentioning that? President Obama didn’t mention it in his remarks the other day, either. Does that suggest bad faith on his part?
The mainstream Democratic position is to take away the ‘guy behind the tree’s’ gun. And when specific policy’s are introduced, it’s not just the other guy, but family, friends or yourself that is treated with suspicion. The assault-weapons bans are directed towards guns with features that are no more lethal than similar guns, but they are purchased by people Democrat elites don’t like.
Still unsure about what is going on with concealed-carry being implemented in Chicago, and whether the city is racially-discriminated against African-Americans. Whatever is going-on is not transparent, particularly as I thought Illinois went to “shall” issue status, but apparently there is a veto process that I associate with “may” issue.
“Anyone who’s intent on getting an illegal gun….”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers-and-actual-solutions/
Whether it’s a winning political issue or not seems irrelevant. You could say the same about driving autos, or driving autos under the influence. Good luck with banning that, politicians.
That’s not the issue at hand. I’ve seen nothing proposed wrt guns that will be efficacious……………..not at pandering for votes mind you, but reducing criminal or mass shooting deaths.
Dave- Yes, the two are connected. Bad faith? Not at all. You are writing blog posts not books. I just find it odd that after 7 years of being able to buy all the guns they want, after doubling their purchases, the gun crowd still thinks taking away their guns is an Obama priority.
Steve
I can’t hope to psychoanalyze them. As I said in the body of the post, I recognize that there are people to whom the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment is to others. I’m not one of them but I recognize that there are many such people.
I think that eliminating all guns is one of the president’s wishes, like single payer or any number of other things. I don’t think it goes any farther than a wish, e.g. actual policy or proposed legislation.
The US is behind the curve in mass killings. American mass murders do not get the actual number of victims per attack, and they are using 20th century technology.
When the crazies cannot get guns, they are not suddenly going to stop being crazy. The blood lust is not going away. Instead, they will figure out that they need to get up to speed. It will only take one or two suicide bombers, and the gun problem will be solved.
Then, I suspect people will be yearning for the simpler and less deadly times when the crazies only killed with guns. At least with a gun, you can play dead.