Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sub7Agent t1_j8kgxlv wrote

Reply to comment by losprimera in Michigan State cancels athletic events for 48 hours after campus shooting by PrincessBananas85

Pretty obvious. The majority of mass shootings are either social outcasts, incels or culturally motivated (excluding gang shootings which are ignored anyway).

3

losprimera t1_j8mhme1 wrote

correlation is not causation. For example, even if majority of shooters are all the things you claimed, consider their representative significance: if for each loner/incel/whatever there is one shooter, then there is singificant correlation. I doubt anyone has data to support a claim like this. How does one measure and define an incel in a way that is statistically relevant anyway? yea i dont know. cuz if its 1 shooter/10000 loner/incel/whatever, then its a somewhat weak correlation. For example, US national homicide rate is 6.5/100,000 people.

This is also not necessarily causation, e.g. did they become shooters BECAUSE of those mentioned factors? Because if everyone somewhat fits those descriptions (and they do. sexual activity and marriage rates are generally on the decline. The US dept of Health and Human Services do track some of that data.) then there is weak reason to presuppose causation beyond a simple observation that both are on the increase and bears monitoring.

Edit: This is actually a good thread ill be sure to use in classroom instruction.

1

Sub7Agent t1_j8ng7f1 wrote

It's not rocket science.

How many female school shooters do you know?

https://unherd.com/2022/05/why-young-men-become-shooters/

1

losprimera t1_j8qewj2 wrote

It's not rocket science, but claims must still be substantiated by science. And that means using scientific methodologies. Your article brings up interesting points, but ultimately fails cite anything more than conjecture. That is expected of a non-academic piece of writing, but it holds little persuasive power. Obviously there must be hard data pointing towards your claim, but until you and I both know it, claims of any sort are rather pointless. Surely you see the logic here?

Edit: violent crime is predominantly men because males exhibit more violent tendencies at the extreme percentiles than women. That is to say, if one witnesses a violent crime, it's more than likely perpetrated by a man. So if extreme violence tends to be committed by a male, then all the more so for mass shootings. What even is the argument here?

1