Vox Accidentally Proves Blue States Have 42 Percent More Mass Shootings Than Red States

Blue states have 42 percent more mass shootings than red states after adjusting for population, according to data published by Vox, a progressive media outlet, and examined by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Vox published its data after the Orlando terror attack last Sunday, and it suggests that blue states, which tend to have extremely strict gun laws, are ironically much more likely to have mass shootings than red states with less strict gun laws.

The DCNF’s analysis found that 543 of the mass shootings listed by Vox occurred in blue states while only 330 occurred in red states. If adjusted to account for differences in the size of population, blue states have .381 mass shootings per 100,000 people, while red states have a mere .267.

Places where Democrats controlled the state legislature were even more likely to have mass shootings than the average blue state. This means that a mass shooting, as defined by Vox, is 42 percent more likely to occur in a blue state after accounting for population differences.

The deep blue areas of Washington, D.C. and Maryland led the nation with 2.38 and .998 mass shootings per 100,000 people. Illinois, Delaware, Michigan Rhode Island, and California were relatively close behind and had more mass shootings than the blue state average, according to Vox’s data.

Gun laws are generally drafted by state legislatures — Democrats control both branches of the state legislature in Maryland, Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, and California. Washington, D.C., which had the worst per capita mass shootings, does not have a state legislature, but every member of the current city council is a Democrat and the city has never elected a Republican mayor. This correlation between mass shootings and Democratic control of state legislature is especially striking as Democrats are currently in full control of just 11 state legislatures while the GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures.

The typical liberal explanation for this is that mass shooters go to red states to buy guns, which they use in blue states. Even progressive Politifact finds these claims “misleading for a varied number of reasons.” This also ignores the fact that there are already roughly 360 million firearms in America, or more guns than people.

Republicans currently control the state legislature and the governor’s office of Michigan, but the state has consistently voted for Democrats in the last six presidential elections. During the last six years, the GOP has won governorships in purple and even deep blue states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico.

Of the top ten states by mass shootings per capita, The DCNF’s analysis found that six of them were deep blue states. Several red states such as Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming did not have a single mass shooting.

The DCNF concluded that a state was blue or red based on how it voted in each of the last four presidential elections. This methodology only factored in America’s 22 red states and 18 blue states. This means that if everything else was even, statistically, red states should be over-represented as there are more of them. This methodology excluded large swings states like Ohio and Florida and states, which leaned red or blue.

The DCNF previously found that of the 998 “mass shootings” noted by Vox only 86, or roughly eight percent, meet the threshold of a “mass murder,” as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and academics. Vox’s data claimed America had 11.6 times more mass shootings than actually occurred. This lack of “mass murder” didn’t stop Vox founder Ezra Klein from tweeting out an updated map of 998 “mass shootings,” which was retweeted almost 25,000 times and favorited more than 22,000 times.

Vox’s definition of a “mass shooting” isn’t an official one taken from law enforcement or academia, but appears to be originally created by anti-gun activists from the website Reddit. Vox defined a mass shooting as any shooting where four or more people are injured or killed, not counting the shooter. Criminologists and law enforcement, however define it as four or more people killed, not counting the shooter.



Read more:http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/20/p...42-percent-more-mass-shootings/#ixzz4CKJD72MP
 
Of course. Some parasites in Blue states see other parasites getting more freebies than they do. And to protest that "inequality", they murder a bunch of innocents. It's only natural.
 
Last edited:

Australia's gun laws stopped mass shootings and reduced homicides, study finds

Reforms still having positive effect 20 years on, as landmark study shows accelerated reduction in rates of suicide and homicide deaths caused by firearms


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds

Thursday 23 June 2016

Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.

It has been two decades since rapid-fire long guns were banned in Australia, including those already in private ownership, and 19 years since the mandatory buyback of prohibited firearms by government at market price was introduced. A handgun buyback program was later introduced, in 2003.

Researchers from the University of Sydney and Macquarie University analysed data on intentional suicide and homicide deaths caused by firearms from the National Injury Surveillance Unit, and intentional firearm death rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For the period after the 1996 reforms, rates of total homicides and suicides from all causes were also examined to consider whether people may have substituted guns for alternative means.

From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.

The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards, the study found.

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.

The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Thursday, days after the US Senate rejected a string of Republican and Democrat measures to restrict guns. The reforms were proposed in response to the deadliest mass shooting in US history, at an LGBTI nightclub in Orlando.

The 1996 reforms introduced in Australia came just months after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant used two semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 23 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania. The reforms had the support of all major political parties.

The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.

“I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.

“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

He said the researchers had chosen to publish the results in an American medical journal not just because the title was a prestigious one, but also because the findings would have a greater impact.

However, he does not believe the findings will have an impact on gun ownership laws in the US.

“The US is a good example of where evidence is going to take longer to prevail over fear and ideology,” he said.

“When people like [Republican candidate] Donald Trump talk about gun violence, he’s essentially not talking about the facts or the evidence, he’s talking about ideology and saying people want the right to protect themselves and their homes.

“The irony is the person you have to protect yourself most from in a home is the person who owns the gun.”

Chapman said more than half of those who had conducted mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand had been licensed gun holders.

A co-author of the paper, Associate Professor Philip Alpers, who is also the founding director of GunPolicy.org, said it was “amazing” that the reforms were still having a positive effect 20 years after they were first introduced.

“When these laws came in the hope was they would curb mass shooting, but what we didn’t realise was the laws would be followed by huge changes in other types of shootings, particularly in suicide,” he said.

“The breadth of the change was unexpected. But in America, things will get worse before they get better. In Australia we had a government that was prepared to act, and what [the then prime minister] John Howard did amounted to the confiscation of private property.

“You just can’t imagine the US ever seeing that as feasible.”
 
Of course. Some parasites in Blue states see other parasites getting more freebies than they do. And to protest that "inequality", they murder a bunch of innocents. It's only natural.

Pretty funny considering blue states contribute much more to the budget, red states are takers. But don't let facts bother you.
 
Of course. Some parasites in Blue states see other parasites getting more freebies than they do. And to protest that "inequality", they murder a bunch of innocents. It's only natural.

Let's not forget that liberals like telling everyone that their the victims, their poor because somebody else is rich, (but not the rich liberals of course), their victims because their Gay, or Black, or Hispanic, or that they failed because everyone out there who has something, really didn't work for it, they have it because their racist bigoted homophobes and they're keeping you down. The Liberals tell them that they welcome and embrace diversity, (it's ok if you don't look like us as long as you think like us, if you don't we'll put you in jail) so vote for me and I'll give you the utopia you deserve. When the Liberals keep telling you, "You're the Victim" it's no wonder some act out with violence.
 
Blue states have 42 percent more mass shootings than red states after adjusting for population, according to data published by Vox, a progressive media outlet, and examined by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Vox published its data after the Orlando terror attack last Sunday, and it suggests that blue states, which tend to have extremely strict gun laws, are ironically much more likely to have mass shootings than red states with less strict gun laws.

The DCNF’s analysis found that 543 of the mass shootings listed by Vox occurred in blue states while only 330 occurred in red states. If adjusted to account for differences in the size of population, blue states have .381 mass shootings per 100,000 people, while red states have a mere .267.

Places where Democrats controlled the state legislature were even more likely to have mass shootings than the average blue state. This means that a mass shooting, as defined by Vox, is 42 percent more likely to occur in a blue state after accounting for population differences.

The deep blue areas of Washington, D.C. and Maryland led the nation with 2.38 and .998 mass shootings per 100,000 people. Illinois, Delaware, Michigan Rhode Island, and California were relatively close behind and had more mass shootings than the blue state average, according to Vox’s data.

Gun laws are generally drafted by state legislatures — Democrats control both branches of the state legislature in Maryland, Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, and California. Washington, D.C., which had the worst per capita mass shootings, does not have a state legislature, but every member of the current city council is a Democrat and the city has never elected a Republican mayor. This correlation between mass shootings and Democratic control of state legislature is especially striking as Democrats are currently in full control of just 11 state legislatures while the GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures.

The typical liberal explanation for this is that mass shooters go to red states to buy guns, which they use in blue states. Even progressive Politifact finds these claims “misleading for a varied number of reasons.” This also ignores the fact that there are already roughly 360 million firearms in America, or more guns than people.

Republicans currently control the state legislature and the governor’s office of Michigan, but the state has consistently voted for Democrats in the last six presidential elections. During the last six years, the GOP has won governorships in purple and even deep blue states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico.

Of the top ten states by mass shootings per capita, The DCNF’s analysis found that six of them were deep blue states. Several red states such as Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming did not have a single mass shooting.

The DCNF concluded that a state was blue or red based on how it voted in each of the last four presidential elections. This methodology only factored in America’s 22 red states and 18 blue states. This means that if everything else was even, statistically, red states should be over-represented as there are more of them. This methodology excluded large swings states like Ohio and Florida and states, which leaned red or blue.

The DCNF previously found that of the 998 “mass shootings” noted by Vox only 86, or roughly eight percent, meet the threshold of a “mass murder,” as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and academics. Vox’s data claimed America had 11.6 times more mass shootings than actually occurred. This lack of “mass murder” didn’t stop Vox founder Ezra Klein from tweeting out an updated map of 998 “mass shootings,” which was retweeted almost 25,000 times and favorited more than 22,000 times.

Vox’s definition of a “mass shooting” isn’t an official one taken from law enforcement or academia, but appears to be originally created by anti-gun activists from the website Reddit. Vox defined a mass shooting as any shooting where four or more people are injured or killed, not counting the shooter. Criminologists and law enforcement, however define it as four or more people killed, not counting the shooter.



Read more:http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/20/p...42-percent-more-mass-shootings/#ixzz4CKJD72MP


So? Is there a point to this stupid thread?
 
Let's not forget that liberals like telling everyone that their the victims, their poor because somebody else is rich, (but not the rich liberals of course), their victims because their Gay, or Black, or Hispanic, or that they failed because everyone out there who has something, really didn't work for it, they have it because their racist bigoted homophobes and they're keeping you down. The Liberals tell them that they welcome and embrace diversity, (it's ok if you don't look like us as long as you think like us, if you don't we'll put you in jail) so vote for me and I'll give you the utopia you deserve. When the Liberals keep telling you, "You're the Victim" it's no wonder some act out with violence.


WTF are you babbling about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: d08
Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png



OK, for the conservative gun nuts here who of course have trouble with basic math. Since Aus gun laws their deaths have gone down about 60% while during the same period the US deaths have gone down only about 10%.


Strict gun laws work and hand guns and assault rifles should be banned.
 
Last edited:
if you read your study...

"We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms."

if you read other studies you would find that nothing changed with respect gun murders until the aussies put a lot more money into cops and law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top