Mass shootings are rare enough that you're going to get poor stats due to granularity. It might be more interesting to look at stats like homicide rate.
The U.S. has a homicide rate that is second only to Russia in the G8, and is more than 3 times higher that of any G8 nation besides Russia. This sets off warning bells for me...
Normally I'd love to dig a little deeper, but it's time for me to play Santa. Merry Christmas!
Yes, let's exclude statistics in order to normalise them. Because if we cut out the bits of statistics that sway them, we can claim the distribution is the same as elsewhere!
By grouping statistics into these things we call "countries" we are also "excluding" certain statistics. For instance, why are we ignoring cartel murders just south of the US/Mexican border even though the US drug market is the driving factor?
The parent comment is providing a better, more specific grouping that helps shed light on where murders are actually happening in the US and points us towards where we need to focus our efforts if we want to actually change the murder rate in the US. Inner city interventions will result in the greatest improvements to the murder rate, whereas focusing efforts elsewhere has literally zero chance of bringing the murder rate into line with the rest of the G8 because that's not where the murders are happening.
The parent comment is introducing a new variable which may or may not be useful in, as you suggest, providing targeted approaches to reducing deaths by firearms.
It still flies in te face of convention which still treats a whole country as a whole country, in the perhaps naive assumption that by averaging the nations stats you will be able to get a good comparison of what the average citizen puts up with an thus providing a ground for comparison with other average citizens in other nation-states, regardless of their level of development, or even, indeed, if they have 'inner city slums'.
And all that is leaving aside the matter of whether the statement is actually true, as questioned by a number of other threads
It's not a new variable, it's just a new, equally arbitrary, line on the maps.
In slums you have a completely different expectation of law enforcement and law enforcement presence, social service, education, economy, transportation, etc. In every respect except for lines on a map, slums are a completely different world. "Countries" are an obscenely coarse classification, we should always be open to more fine-grained analysis.
What a great comment. Encouraging people to look beyond their backyard to see the effects of what they do day to day is not easy, but it is important. Looking at stats for murder, poverty etc is more meaningful when examined globally.
What the heck is wrong with Northern Idaho? Elko Nevada? So Cal's inland empire? I didn't think there was anyone to kill in western New Mexico. The Mississippi Delta also doesn't look like a healthy place to live.
If we excluded Louisiana, the murder rate would probably plummet to mostly normal levels. And it just isn't New Orleans.
I don't know if the person you're responding to is actually correct or not, but the map you're referring to is very misleading. The places you named--and, not coincidentally, many of the places on the map with the highest murder rate as a percentage of population--are all sparsely populated.
Notice that the many of the places with the lowest murder rates also tend to be sparsely populated. What you're seeing is the increased variance that one should expect to see when dealing with smaller sample sizes, not evidence that small towns are more dangerous than big cities.
I bet we would see more geographic correlation with not too much variation in city areas (e.g., the Delta is still a dangerous place to live, which would correspond to anecdotal evidence). Unfortunately, I can't google up a decent gun homicide heat map.
Elko, Nevada is a mining town; having grown up in one that was such until a bit after WWII I can tell you these have long lasting cultural differences that include higher crime rates.
Nope. It is both. From dictionary.com "ton" entry:
"7. Informal a. A large extent, amount, or number. Often used in the plural: has a ton of work; gets tons of fan mail."
Also, please provide a reference.
Since you asked politely, here's one. Manhattan, which I don't consider an "inner city slum" had 88 homicides in 2005, 102 in 2006, 68 in 2007, 62 in 2008, etc.
That's comparable to Ireland, Switcherland, Denmark, Austria, countries of 3 to 6 times the population of Manhattan (1.6), and 3 to 4 times the percentage of murders in Germany (adjusted for the 80 million population).
You just compared full countries to a densely populated city which is surrounded by Burroughs with notorious ghettos (in parts of the Bronx, Harlem, Brooklyn, Queens and in New Jersey).
Not only that, but Manhattan is the entertainment center for the surrounding Burroughs and cities, where a lot of violence happens.
This is true in Toronto as well, our "club district" has one of the highest murder rates from people visiting who don't live in the club district.
I don't think Manhattan makes a fair comparison and doesn't disprove the OP's comment.
The U.S. has a homicide rate that is second only to Russia in the G8, and is more than 3 times higher that of any G8 nation besides Russia. This sets off warning bells for me...
Normally I'd love to dig a little deeper, but it's time for me to play Santa. Merry Christmas!