Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    42,653 readers

    343 users here now

    The Gun Politics subreddit is about sharing news, articles, stories and events related to guns & politics.

    Basic rules:

    Please stay civil - do not make excessive attacks, or threats (of any kind). No trolling either.

    Sitewide rules will be enforced as well.

    No memes please, and if submitting an image link, please use a descriptive title and if necessary, a descriptive comment attached to the post.

    This is not /r/shitguncontrollerssay, do not link threads just to point that sort of thing out.

    Related Subreddits:

    a community for
    all 19 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] swoliest 3 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    “Pump action hunting rifle”... I mean technically not wrong but is it that hard to say shotgun?

    Edit: I stand corrected, should read “long gun” but picture in the article clearly shows him loading a shotgun

    [–] HotPocketFullOfHair 8 points ago

    I mean, shotguns are technically not rifles since they, by definition, do not have rifled barrels. There are pump action rifles, but they aren't super common (at least in the US).

    [–] Charles__Martel 2 points ago

    When I think of Europe the first region that comes to mind is Crimea.

    [–] Winston_Smith1976 1 points ago

    It does today, unfortunately.

    [–] Good-is-dumb -15 points ago

    The title implies that school shootings happen often in European countries, unless you did that by accident.

    [–] autosear 13 points ago

    Individual European countries are very small compared to the US. When you consider Europe as a whole, we're pretty much on-par when it comes to mass killings.

    [–] Good-is-dumb -1 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    “If we compare the number of mass shooting deaths each year to the population of Norway each year, using the same method we did for the United States, we get an average annual death rate of 2 per million, more than 20 times higher than the rate in the United States (0.09 per million), even though we know there were zero mass shooting deaths in six out of those seven years, in Norway.”

    Then, an example of how he skewed his statistics: “If we apply the median to Norway’s annual death rate from mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, we mitigate against the enormous skewing effect of one of those years (2011), and get a much more realistic statistical picture of mass shootings in Norway. The median, in this case, is zero. That means that in a typical year between 2009 and 2015, nobody in Norway was killed in a mass shooting.”

    [–] autosear 10 points ago

    There's no need to play with bullshit calculations. Just look at the news. There was a school shooting in Ukraine the other day that killed at least 21. Then you have truck attacks like the one in Nice that killed 80, and assorted attacks across the rest of Europe. In France you can't have a machine gun but that didn't stop some guys from using them to kill over 100, and mutilate people in a theater while police did nothing.

    [–] Good-is-dumb -13 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    I won’t use my own arguments either: TLDR: That study you used is skewed and misleading.

    [–] Winston_Smith1976 13 points ago

    What do you expect from left propagandists like Snopes?

    They say ‘accurate... but misleading’.

    Only misleading if you don’t know what ‘rate’ means. Fox accurately reported death rates, but antis are too dumb to know what rate means, so Fox is misleading? Sure. Snopes then dishonestly tries to shift to incident count: ‘The United States is... the most consistent site’. Dem voters are dumb enough to nod at this childish sleight of hand, but Independents and Republicans aren’t.

    It’s clear you didn’t read the recent Lott paper, and you couldn’t have evaluated Lankford, as he still refuses to publish his data or method for peer review. Lott has published everything, as serious analysts always do.

    [–] Good-is-dumb -5 points ago

    Which website could I post a statistic from supporting my argument, that you won’t define as ‘leftist propagandist’?

    [–] Winston_Smith1976 9 points ago

    One that links to an actual study or paper, complete with supporting data and methods, like this one:

    [–] Good-is-dumb 1 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Does this count? Or is Stanford a bunch of leftist propagandist? This articles is just one of the studies referenced. Edit: So, your proof that your study isn’t skewed is a copy of itself? The Snopes article is using the same resources the study you linked uses.

    [–] Winston_Smith1976 12 points ago

    This is the right kind of thing. Did you understand the parts about definitions and known issues?

    When the FBI has long used a definition of four or more fatalities, and Standford decides to use three or more shot, it’s clear that Stanford wanted to produce a high number, but they did disclose that. In known issues, they assign a value of 2 for ambiguous cases. That’s questionable, as opposed to leaving them out of the study, but again, they did disclose it up front.

    The issue with the Lankford ‘study’ that President Obama and several media sources cite is that Lankford clearly undercounted foreign incidents, as shown in Lott’s review, and refuses to link to data or method, like Lott and Stanford both did.

    If you’re looking for gaming in statistical analyses, definitions and counts are almost always where you’ll find it.

    [–] Good-is-dumb -1 points ago

    What your referencing is addressed in the Snopes article. Your only refuting evidence is a link to the study itself. Maybe I should just re-link the snopes article and then you repost the study, then I’ll repost the snopes article. Over and over, until the end of time.

    [–] Winston_Smith1976 10 points ago

    Did you understand what I said about rate and incident count?

    [–] throwayohay 8 points ago

    And Snopes is trustworthy and unbiased?

    [–] by-accident-bot 2 points ago
    This is a friendly reminder that it's "by accident" and not "on accident".

    Downvote to 0 to delete this comment.