That article blames mass shootings on antidepressants, which is stupid. Mass shootings are pretty much a uniquely American phenomenon which is caused by lack of gun control, something that the rest of the civilized world figured out decades ago but America cannot get her act together.
I think this is an example where data analysis is less useful than just looking at the facts on the ground. For example, central and South American nations have the highest gun murder rates, yes. But they also have unstable governments with large areas controlled by powerful gang armies, and the vast majority of the gun violence is gang related. Is that a good comparison? Yes, in the US most gun violence is also gang related. But is it a good comparison to the typical US mass shootings, which is usually some guy who goes crazy and shoots up a school? That type of thing simply doesn't happen nearly as much in stable countries, or even in the unstable Latin American countries. We also have to take into account how much the freewheeling US gun economy contributes to the availability of guns in those countries.
Let me clarify, I am not saying that gun control laws are a panacea. They obviously are not working very well in Brazil, or Mexico, at least for stopping gang violence. Maybe they wouldn't work here any better, because of the crazy gun culture. But I think the main problem relative to other civilized countries is the prevalence of guns.
I used to think the US mass shooting level might have more to do with a more violent predisposition than other countries, rather than gun control, but after research on other violence rates such as assault crime rate and hospitalizations for violent injuries, I was convinced that the US is not really more violent than Canada, the UK, France, etc.
Having lived in Canada for nearly all of my life, I can tell you that we've had extraordinarily strict gun laws for at least as long as I've been alive (which has been quite a while now). The restrictions are by no means new (recent changes to the law have been largely cosmetic - and have failed to reduce actual gun violence).
Absolutely. There is a difference between allowing guns for serious hunters, and having a loony gun culture where everybody and there grandmother can get them at a gun show or a Wal-Mart.
Gun regulations are a federal jurisdiction in Canada, so the laws are uniform across the country. I actually spend a lot of my professional time on Canadian policy analysis so this is one of the few things I actually do know quite well. :)
I never saw the documentary so I can't comment, but I do know that handgun permits have been limited to protecting life or property or belonging to an approved shooting club since 1933 and licenses were required to acquire or possess guns or ammunition since 1976 (which, admittedly, is after I was born). As I said, there have been many more recent tweaks to the regulations, but the rules have always been much stricter than in the US.
I wish I could understand all this better. It's hugely important.
That article blames mass shootings on antidepressants, which is stupid. Mass shootings are pretty much a uniquely American phenomenon which is caused by lack of gun control, something that the rest of the civilized world figured out decades ago but America cannot get her act together.
Actually, the data I've seen strongly suggests that the US experiences relatively **fewer** mass shooting deaths per-capita than many other nations. See this for a good discussion of the available data: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country.
That website is a distortion of the data on many levels and has been debunked many times. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/do-mass-shootings-occur-more-often-in-france-switzerland-and-finland-than-in-the-united-states/
The only one that possibly has validity just in terms of the per capita is Norway, which as a tiny nation was skewed by one mass shooting in 2011.
Redefining "mass shootings" is not the same as "debunking". The data is complex. I wrote a bit on the larger topic some years ago: https://stories.thedataproject.net/docs/8-gun-control/
I think this is an example where data analysis is less useful than just looking at the facts on the ground. For example, central and South American nations have the highest gun murder rates, yes. But they also have unstable governments with large areas controlled by powerful gang armies, and the vast majority of the gun violence is gang related. Is that a good comparison? Yes, in the US most gun violence is also gang related. But is it a good comparison to the typical US mass shootings, which is usually some guy who goes crazy and shoots up a school? That type of thing simply doesn't happen nearly as much in stable countries, or even in the unstable Latin American countries. We also have to take into account how much the freewheeling US gun economy contributes to the availability of guns in those countries.
Let me clarify, I am not saying that gun control laws are a panacea. They obviously are not working very well in Brazil, or Mexico, at least for stopping gang violence. Maybe they wouldn't work here any better, because of the crazy gun culture. But I think the main problem relative to other civilized countries is the prevalence of guns.
I used to think the US mass shooting level might have more to do with a more violent predisposition than other countries, rather than gun control, but after research on other violence rates such as assault crime rate and hospitalizations for violent injuries, I was convinced that the US is not really more violent than Canada, the UK, France, etc.
Having lived in Canada for nearly all of my life, I can tell you that we've had extraordinarily strict gun laws for at least as long as I've been alive (which has been quite a while now). The restrictions are by no means new (recent changes to the law have been largely cosmetic - and have failed to reduce actual gun violence).
Absolutely. There is a difference between allowing guns for serious hunters, and having a loony gun culture where everybody and there grandmother can get them at a gun show or a Wal-Mart.
Gun regulations are a federal jurisdiction in Canada, so the laws are uniform across the country. I actually spend a lot of my professional time on Canadian policy analysis so this is one of the few things I actually do know quite well. :)
I never saw the documentary so I can't comment, but I do know that handgun permits have been limited to protecting life or property or belonging to an approved shooting club since 1933 and licenses were required to acquire or possess guns or ammunition since 1976 (which, admittedly, is after I was born). As I said, there have been many more recent tweaks to the regulations, but the rules have always been much stricter than in the US.