Talk:Mass shootings in the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reference 35 is highly biased

Reference number 35 regarding lead is highly biased. When you read the article it's citing it says that the Clean Air act was approved on 1980 and in 1980 the number of mass shootings dropped so it must be that less lead means less violence. That is simply not how science AND statistics work. Causation isn't causality. Just cause A and B happen simultaneously doesn't mean A causes B. Isabelator2000 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it's not mistaking correlation for causation. The source doesn't say [Clean Air Act] --> [less crime]. It's [Clean Air Act] --> [less human exposure to lead] --> [research that lead can make humans more aggressive] --> [decrease in human exposure to lead may lead to decrease in aggression] --> [less aggression means less violence]. It's definitely something that's going to be harder to prove, and WaPo even says some are skeptical, but it's a hypothesis that several people have written about, and it's not something we're saying is true in wikipedia's voice. Researchers have attributed increases/decreases in violence to all sorts of things, with a wide range of scientific support (or lack thereof) behind them. Ultimately, I do agree that environmental factors should be better elaborated upon, and not entirely rest on the Clean Air Act claim. The Clean Air Act hasn't even been the only change in law/production/society that led to decreased exposure to lead! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Armed civilians, not civilians?

We had text which says

Shooters generally either die by suicide afterward, or are restrained or killed by law enforcement officers or civilians.

It cites this source, which doesn't limit the claim to armed civilians and in fact explicitly mentions unarmed civilians.

Th78blue inserted "armed" before civilians, which I reverted because, again, the source is clear that it's not just armed civilians. Th78blue has now reinserted it, with an odd justification that makes it sound like they're removing "unarmed" to allow for the possibility of armed civilians, rather than restricting the claim to armed civilians. I'd rather not revert again so bringing it here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I see your PDF source. I believe this is a primary source, so there is that, but thanks for sharing. I was looking at the subsequent one with was PBS and therefore secondary. I have added an additional source from the RS list (Washington Post) now as well. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The WaPo source, which is an opinion piece by the way, doesn't verify your change. It only verifies that there have been instances of armed civilians stopping shootings. The sentence as it was already covered both armed and unarmed civilians by specifying neither. All you've done is make it seem like only armed civilians stop shootings, and unarmed civilians do not, which is verified by neither and contradicted by one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand where @Th78blue is coming from and I also understand your concerns @Rhododendrites. Perhaps a potential solution could be to change the sentence to be as follows:

Shooters generally either die by suicide afterward, or are restrained or killed by law enforcement officers or armed/unarmed civilians.

This way, it clarifies that civilians that stop shooters are not always armed or unarmed when they stop or kill shooters. As it currently reads, it seems as though only unarmed civilians are the ones that stop shooters since there is an assumption that most citizens are unarmed (unlike law enforcement). This change will make it clear that it is armed and unarmed civilians that stop/kill shooters. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. In the interest of BRD, I added, with some minor copy editing. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 00:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously saying "armed/unarmed civilians" is better than the blatantly POV/misleading version which just says "armed," but it's awkward wording for the sake of a compromise where no compromise is actually needed. The change to armed was because of a claim that "civilian" means "unarmed civilian," which it simply doesn't, except if we're taking at face value the "it takes good guy with a gun" slogan. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Chart Headings (Columns)

I believe it would be helpful if a column was added to the main chart stating the general type of LOCATION of the shootings: SCHOOL, CHURCH, Gov't Building, City Streets, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecw4w44 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lede

With regard to the implication of OR, VERIFY and REALTIME objections, I have some questions. I'd also like to examine the citations to try and get some clarification, if anyone thinks that might help. Considering this number tends to change on a daily basis, how does this work? Is this number updated automatically? DN (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Table: Deadliest mass shootings since 1949 reads like a highscore board

The table "Deadliest mass shootings since 1949" currently reads like a high score board. While the table currently accurately provides the information about mass shootings and casualties, in my opinion the current presentation is highly problematic. Ordering the table according to date and disabling ordering according to casualties (e.g. by adding them in text form) would also provide the necessary information without the high score board appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwule (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

+1. I do not think at its core, that sorting by casualities or rather the immediate impact of a battle, war, shooting, etc. is inappropriate. However, the current section heavily focuses on "deadliest", and reads a bit like a competition/highscore board. I will do some work on this section.Cxmplex (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Rand meta analysis

What about the following source?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075800/ Mikeschaerer (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Misleading citations: "The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country"

"The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country" has multiple citations, making it appear to be a rock solid assertion. If you look closer at these citations, they are all varying news media referencing the same study by Adam Lankford at University of Alabama. There should just be one citation, sourcing this one study. Recently this study has been brought into question, and Lankford will not share his data for it to be verified, but a separate study by the Crime Prevention Research Study disputes his results. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/29/john-lott-jr-adam-lankford-botched-study-claiming-/ Given how politically sensitive this topic is, I can't comment on the motivations of either Lankford or John Lott and if they really did academically rigorous research, but we will never know about Lankford if he refuses to share his dataset.

I haven't edited an article before, and I didn't want to go through and delete a bunch of citations someone else looked up, but I thought I'd mention this here because the current article appears biased in the treatment of the quoted statement.

It should be noticed that while the number of shootings in the US is higher than other countries, the death toll per Capita from mass shootings is much lower on the list. Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)