Women, Not Students, Are The Target Of Most Gun Murder

a reply to: FyreByrd

1) Not a sole has disputed the facts that more women have been killed by guns (by their partners) since 2001 then all the deaths in combat in Irag and Afghanistan. No one is disputing that.

Can I ask you what is there to dispute?

A nation of 330,000,000 vs how many troops were actually in the war zone at any given time? What 200,000 or so? Ok maybe a little more. Why even compare the two? Is Al-Qaida and abusive men in relationships joining ranks?

I read the article. I like how they hammered the "GUN NUT" saying into the ground.

Not to mention they get their stats from the Brady foundation. Skewed numbers, possibly a little, probably....

The article only serves the purpose to slant info for the anti gun crowd. Not once did it mention how many women were saved because of firearms, or any victim of criminal act that was stopped because of firearms.

The "GUN NUT" slant was so heavy that this piece is nothing but a propaganda tool for the ignorant.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Please, you act like tho op isnt just baiting. Which I think he is, as are you. Your all just looking for a fight.
Guess we know where this thread may end.


Peace.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Pinke

Any support for your supposition? Or just want you want to believe?

I actually mentioned the support for my supposition, but you can also look up studies by criminologists like Jack Levin or Grant Duwe if you like. I don't have time to write a university level paper for you, but here are some things about mass shootings you need to take into account:

* When someone compares shootings in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's comparing two totally different data sets. Per capita, Iraq probably has more shootings. If we put Iraqi people on the map, it may even just beat your numbers out right.
* The school shootings reference are based largely on the Mother Jones dataset which, even if it was accurate which it isn't, is around 70 shootings out of several hundred more mass murders which have occurred. It is statistically insignificant even in the already small dataset of all mass shootings in the USA . There are an average of about 25 mass murders a year in the USA - only a tiny number are reported as 'the norm'. On this point, you personally are correct, the focus on such a small group of shootings is wrong, but in being wrong it also refutes the OP claim.
* One of your major studies overwhelmingly focuses on women's shootings. A lot of things on that website do, and they can sound quite significant when safely tucked away from the wider homicide demographic which is mainly men shooting other men. (And it is actually gendered ... men don't value each other as much as they should!)
* Mass shootings are easy datasets to misrepresent because they are so uncommon. To give an example, mass shootings would profile the shooter as white since 1976. If we moved the numbers to between 2001 to 2010 (Huff-Corzine et al, 2014) the profile would suggest black people are more likely to be mass murderers. Some of your study data runs between 2003 and 2012. Chances are, with the numbers involved, we could skew the data again by moving it to say 2011 only - something your study does a handful of times. A quoted example:

According to a
Mayors Against Illegal Guns analysis of the 93 mass shootings in the United States
between January 2009 and September 2013 that involved four or more victims, 57
percent involved domestic violence. In these cases, the shooter killed a current or
former spouse, intimate partner, or other family member as part of his rampage.25

Source
The study acknowledges that familicide statistics can be problematic, but doesn't seem to mind bending them like a pretzel whenever it props up the point, and imply that the 'unknowns' mean 'under reported'.
* With women making up around 40% of mass shooting victims, you can see in a small dataset it wouldn't take much to get the demographic over the 50% line with some number shifting. A single incident can massively skew the numbers.

To your credit, familicide is an issue that needs to be addressed. They make up around 30% of all homicides, and many of them go under reported, but to take a small handful of school shootings and imply that they are descriptive of a wider trend is wrong. It becomes really obvious too when you look at the banner of the website, this is a political gambit which is time consuming to deconstruct:


Yes, in isolation mass shootings and the spike of women victims seems incredibly significant, but taken into account with wider trends, the overall homicide rate, and the fact that women are around 20 - 25% of victims in all homicides ... this isn't a women's issue.

When family men start shooting they don't spare their sons or brothers. The closing of the gender gap in mass shootings actually demonstrates less discriminate (not indiscriminate) wide spread rage and hatred from people who are not indoctrinated in the social norm of protecting women from violence ... it doesn't demonstrate that women in particular are being targeted.

I'm open to a rebuttal of these issues FyreByrd but only if you put a similar amount of effort into the exchange. That includes looking up source material. If you need help finding your way to or through data please U2U me, and I can give you a reference list from my studies.

I'm not trying to be a pain, but a single paper on this subject is often a far more significant word count than ATS will allow to be posted.

Thanks.

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Pinke

Any support for your supposition? Or just want you want to believe?

I actually mentioned the support for my supposition, but you can also look up studies by criminologists like Jack Levin or Grant Duwe if you like. I don't have time to write a university level paper for you, but here are some things about mass shootings you need to take into account:

Thank you for your serious response as I was quite serious about my question. I think you have found a decent argument about the two data sets being so divergent as to be imcomparable but without further effort on my part I can't easily follow the agrument enough to agree or disagree with the hypothoseis.

The numbers as used are simply the raw numbers. No movement over time was alleged which I think would be required to discount the comparason.

It would be analogous to saying there are 550 dolphins in the Pacific ocean and only 320 in the Atlantic. It tells us nothing about why the discrepancy exists only that it does. The methodocogy of the actual counting can be called into question if there is dispute about the numbers.

The initial referenced article uses the numbers as a comparision not as a causitive factor.

Again thank you for giving me something solid to consider. it's not my field nor am I very interested in it; but it is helpful to be reminded about all the moving parts that need balancing to draw a reasonable inference.

a reply to: FyreByrd

No problems FyreByrd.

If you ever need help finding data etc feel free to kick me. I don't really have a dog in most fights, but I like numbers and studies and things.