Rampage shooting is a relatively underexplored area. However, since the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected, its an area receiving more scholarly research. A recent example is Lankford (2016, Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries, Violence and Victims, Vol 31: 187-199). Here's the summary: Objective: Model the global distribution of public mass shooters around the world. Method: Negative binomial regression is used to test the effects of homicide rates, suicide rates, firearm ownership rates, and several control variables on public mass shooters per country from 1966 to 2012. Results: The global distribution of public mass shooters appears partially attributable to cross-national differences in firearms availability but not associated with cross-national homicide or suicide rates. Conclusion: The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators. Is this really surprising? Data from the Small Arms Survey (2007) shows that the top 5 countries for civilian firearm ownership rates are all in the top 15 for public mass shooters per capita.
They are quite able to respond. The real question, however, is why should they bother? It has already been established by yourself, through numerous demonstrations of militant thinking, that the empirical analysis approach in trying to explain the human factor is a viable approach, when no one else believes such. They will come in, explain in detail precisely why the established pointed presented by yourself is incorrect, and demonstrate the logical shortcomings of the the position of yourself. In turn, the response of yourself will be to deny the validity of their claims, insult their intelligence, double down on the position that empirical analysis is valid with regard to explaining human behavior. It has already played out numerous times in various discussions. What is the point of doing such yet again?
In summary, we have another piece of evidence that you cannot dispute. We have another approach which you cannot counter. Fair enough!
Any discussion involving yourself will boil down to whether or not the empirical analysis approach is valid regarding human behavior, while ignoring the supposed data that is being presented. What is the point?
Certainly numerous variables at play, but you haven't managed to critique the paper's findings. Have another bash! Why do we find that, independent of issues such as mental health, gun prevalence is a significant predictor of rampage events?
Any discussion with me will indeed come down to correct application of the available evidence. Unfortunately your approach is evidence free. There are neat examples of that on this thread. Note you have provided no valid critique of the research nor offered any counter research
If the methodology utilized to reach the conclusion is invalid, there is no need to present a criticism of anything other than the methodology itself. As others have pointed out in other discussions, the credibility of the sources cited by yourself is questionable and sketchy at best, and often from second and third hand sources of information. But rather than address such criticism, or actually demonstrate why such criticism is incorrect, what is done by yourself is doubling down in asserting that the sources are correct, but no explanation is given by yourself as to WHY they are correct.
You have provided no relevant methodological flaw, neither have to shown how- if that flaw is removed- conclusions are not robust.
The rampage effects in the use of BFG firearms have not been studied. That's because the BFG doesn't exist - yet. But when it is invented and when it becomes widely available you can put money on the fact that it will be used in many rampages.
Others that have gotten involved in discussions with yourself have demonstrated both how and why the empirical analysis is flawed and invalid. As was explained, instead of addressing such, you ignored the criticism and doubled down on the claim that empirical analysis is a viable methodology.
Empirical critique isn't difficult. Step 1, show that the empirical methodology is biased (e.g. reference to problematic econometric approach) Step 2, refer to an alternative source that reveals conclusions in conflict with the research. Good luck!
Gopal and Greenwood (2017, Traders, guns and money: The effects of mass shootings on stock prices of firearm manufacturers in the US, Plos One, Vol 12) write: "We investigate how mass shootings influence the stock price of firearms manufacturers. While it is well known that mass shootings lead to increased firearms sales, the response from financial markets is unclear. On one hand, given the observed short-term increase in demand, firearm stock prices may rise due to the unexpected financial windfall for the firm. On the other, mass shootings may result in calls for regulation of the industry, leading to divestment of firearms stocks in spite of short-term demand. We examine this tension using a market movement event study in the wake of 93 mass shootings in the U.S. between 2009 and 2013. Findings show that stock prices of firearm manufacturers decline after shootings; each event reducing prices between 22.4 and 49.5 basis points, per day. These losses are exacerbated by the presence of a handgun and the number of victims killed, but not affected by the presence of children or location of the event. Finally, we find that these effects are most prevalent in the period 2009–2010 but disappear in later events, indicating that markets appear to have accepted mass shootings as the new normal" That the US has so many mass shootings that they're researching stock price effects is bad. But that it concludes that the market sees mass shootings as the 'new normal' is striking...
Never mind that the U.S. has over 300,000,000 inhabitants, so of course crime statistics will seem Astronomical when compared to smaller Countries with 6 to 8 Million inhabitants.
Poor effort! Are you seriously suggesting researchers don't control for population? Perhaps refer to evidence that find rampage deaths per capita are actually lower in the US? Good Luck!
You are evidently not aware that most ‘papers’ don’t stand the test of time and are an opinion based often on flawed, unreproducible, and incomplete data. You are also probably unaware that the acceptance for publication is often very flawed. Your reliance on them is a logical fallacy.
It is anti-intellectual to rely on flawed and often biased opinion. Your lack of knowledge about peer review indicates your lack of both curiosity and reliance on bias.
You have nothing but opinion. Intellectualism allows for evidence in support. That you attempt to suggest that an evidence based approach is illogical is amusing mind you.
Ooo, this could be good. Tell me about your experience with the peer review process. Did you write a paper on rampage killings and they refused to publish it?
Thus confirming the point that was made previously. The discussion has come down to nothing more than a matter of whether or not the empirical approach is scientifically valid when attempting to explain human behavior.
Scientists, crimnologists and psychologists have already proved the relevance of the empirical approach. The idea that folk should argue without properly conducted research is idiotic. It is ideology over good sense.
Even if such was proven to be the case, and there is no evidence that such has occurred, it does not mean anything if the validity is not accepted by those the information is presented to. If they believe the methodology is incorrect, the findings will simply not be accepted. This discussion just goes to reinforce that fact.
