I asked you why you dismissed figures as factually wrong by taking exception with a methodology that you yourself used.
Which is the very definition of a tu quoque, not that I actually did make the assertion you're alleging I did.
Because of the plethora of different jurisdictions, from local to county to state for each of the fifty U.S. states and D.C., plus federal law, and then however many books there are in each nation of the rest of the developed world, I don't have time to perform that research now so that I can even begin to analyze the data and then finally attempt to draw honest conclusions. As you are already familiar with all of the relevant data, can I ask you to provide links sufficient for me to at least get a basic idea?
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not asking you to produce a detailed, quantified analysis of how the US differs specifically from individual European nations, I'm asking you to provide a broad justification for your assertion that the US is fundamentally different in its drivers towards violence and criminal behaviour that broad comparisons with the European Union are impossible. From a statistical perspective, the US is broadly comparable in terms of GINI coefficient, Human Development Index, overall violent crime rates (except homicide), political, economic and individual freedoms, nominal and PPP GDP per capita. Even in political structure, as from memory there are at least three federal republics in Europe.
Again, you are arguing a point I did not make. I was not talking about the definition of terms, I was talking about the definition of words.
"Mass" is defined as "involving or affecting large numbers of people or things". "A large number" is inherently a subjective term, and therefore entirely useless in a discussion of this nature as no preexisting "large number" is defined. I think we've both agreed on "at least four fatalities" in principle, but one could equally argue five, six or more. "Mass killings" aren't recorded, because "mass killings" aren't a thing. Mass murders, spree murders, rampage killings etc are all things, with differing technical definitions depending on jurisdiction and recording method. If you're going to resort to an argument from semantics, we should at least be using terms that have actual technical meanings rather than vagaries.
I underlined to highlight that you are moving the goal post in order to admit error, which is far more harmful than just admitting it, but do as you must. You cited Chris Kyle in order to avoid having to actually answer my question.
In case you failed to read, I did answer your question. Moreover, your assertion I'm "moving the goalposts" simply doesn't hold water in the context of the actual comment I made
Let's put aside the fact that I used the term "mass killing", as you had, as, as is outlined above, it's totally meaningless. My original comment, verbatim was:
Because mass murderers typically target a location with some kind of emotional importance to them. That's why aggrieved employees shoot up their place of work, and why angry students conduct massacres at their school. In truly indiscriminate shooting incidents, like Texas University or the Vegas one last year, the perpetrators usually choose a location that gives them a vantage point and a large number of unsuspecting potential victims. Neither a pawn shop or a range fit these descriptions; the latter is likely to be particularly unappealing due entirely to the large number of other armed individuals on site (though they're not unheard of, Chris Kyle was killed in a multiple fatality shooting at a range).
As you can see, I never assert the incident involving Chris Kyle was directly comparable to incidents such as school shootings (a point I've reiterated several times now, and one you seem keen to press despite it being, as I've already mentioned, a straw man). I simply mentioned the Kyle incident in passing as a multiple fatality shooting that took place at a range, which is categorical fact.
There is no causal link...and logic show that mass shooters clearly desire locations devoid of firearms
These two statements are inherently contradictory. First you agree there's no clear causal link, then you state there's a causal link? I'm really struggling to understand your point here- first you agree with me, then you contradict me by making a vague assertion that as far as I can tell is purely speculative and not based on any empirical study of mass shooting incidents. What you seem to be saying is that mass shooters choose locations that have a low likelihood of containing armed individuals intentionally to maximise casualties, but I see no empirical evidence presented to justify that reasoning, and it rather overlooks the fact that places with large numbers of possible targets typically also have a low likelihood of armed responders being present. Your assuming their thought pattern is driven by one factor (absence of firearms), when in reality it might just be a happy coincidence of another (the desire to target a large number of people).
I did, hence the ellipses
You absolutely, categorically did not. You alluded to (and continue to allude to) a correlation between race and violent crime rate, which I didn't address in the last post, but that plus your following comment which basically amounts to "I'm not going to provide an explanation, you go look it up yourself"- poor form in a discussion I must say- does not constitute any kind of coherent rebuttal. Moreover, your pointing to racial aspects and saying "well there's your correlation" completely ignores the wider socioeconomic context. Violent crime rates amongst minorities are generally higher than the average in most nations, but this is substantively due to a great many other factors such as increased deprivation in these populations, lower incomes and education levels, forced ghettoisation and other factors, most of which are derived from government action in the first place (just look at the history of redlining in the US, or the fact that even in 2018 blacks and latinos are still subject to endemic and institutionalised mortgage discrimination). The correlation between socioeconomic status and violent crime is far stronger than that of ethnicity and violent crime.
You are sorely misinformed if you think both the EU and U.S. have the "same diversity of society".
One, this argument would only be relevant if your assertion was that societal diversity was the root cause of violence.
Two, even this is hugely misleading as numerous European or EU nations appear significantly ahead of the US in terms of ethnic diversity. Spain, Estonia, Belgium, Switzerland, Moldova and Latvia all top the US by significant margins, and if you look specifically at ethnic fractionalisation you can add Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Serbia. Then there's your Canadian neighbours, who are some twenty-five places higher in the index than the US. I'd not even mentioned Canada so far in this discussion but they're probably the single strongest rebuttal of these assertions.
There is NO correlation in the U.S. between gun ownership and homicide rate.
The 10 states with the highest murder and non-negligent manslaughter rates (9.6/100K avg.) had a gun ownership of 35.9%, while the 10 lowest states (1.9/100K avg) had an ownership of 31.9%.
The 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates (52.9%) had a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 4.3, while the 10 lowest ownership states (14.3%) had a [murder] rate of 4.2
Firstly, you are aware the above statistics do actually contain, although mild, a clear correlation?
Two, you're yet again making straw man arguments, attempting to address a point I never actually made.
Food for thought, I'm making no conclusions from the below statistics, simply demonstrating how easy it is to selectively choose different metrics to twist the results with a small sample size:
> The average intentional homicide rate of the lowest 10% of states by firearm ownership rate is 2.72 per 100,000
> The average intentional homicide rate of the highest 10% of states by firearm ownership rate is 4.28 per 100,000
I'm noting several rebuttals in my last post you roundly ignored. Given that you went to great lengths to voice your displeasure at my skipping over aspects of one of your previous posts, I can't help but wonder why you decided not to address either the US methodology for recording violent crime, or the difference that adding a mere three years worth of mass shooting statistics make to the overall picture when comparing US with EU.