>These statistics prove only a single thing: mass shootings in USA are likely random events and have a mean value of ~2.
The whole "it is random" BS is based on the pre-assigned value of 2 per year. Why pre-suppose that 2 per year is an acceptable norm, that is not problematic in itself?
Consider a US with a mean value of 10,000 mass shootings per year, with the occasional 0, 20.000 or 50,000 etc mass shootings fitting the poisson distribution. Using the same methodology as the article, the same "conclusion" would have been reached, that mass shootings are random.
This is a major misunderstanding at what "random" implies in this context. It just means that the motives and decisions at the individual level to "go for it" are triggered independently and with the specific year bearing no influence. That is, it proves that the specific events are not co-ordinated.
This is mighty fine, but it doesn't at all mean that the cultural / law / etc climate that makes even considering an attempt at one of these events possible (much more for a median of 2 a year) is "random" or non changeable by human intervention.
Way to misapply statistics. As they say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
As an extreme example, in a country where there are no guns (either legal or illegal), there would be no mass shootings AT ALL. No "spontaneous random activity" pertaining to mass shootings could change that.
In a similar, but more practical way, if other western countries have a median of about 0 mass shootings per year for decades (with the occasional exception), this tells us that even if the number of mass shootings per year in the US is random, the fact that it has mass shooting at all is not random but a cultural/structural result.
Why pre-suppose that 2 per year is an acceptable norm, that is not problematic in itself?
No one does. The rest of your comment is a riff on that point, so I won't respond to that. This (brief) analysis was trying to answer the question: are there more mass shootings now than in the past? The answer was no, and that there are about 2 a year.
This point is entirely independent from the question, what can we do to decrease the number of mass shootings?
>The whole "it is random" BS is based on the pre-assigned value of 2 per year. Why pre-suppose that 2 per year is an acceptable norm, that is not problematic in itself?
There is no such presupposition. The way that you estimate the mean parameter in a Poisson distribution is by taking the average over your sample. "2 per year" is not a normative statement; it's an observation of history.
In statistics, you don't get to make a moral judgment when estimating parameters. If you do that, you will get the Wrong Answer.
A minor point here, but relevant since the OP is emphasizing the importance of understanding the Poisson distribution - if the mean really was 10,000, any observation outside the range [9,500, 10,500] would be extremely unlikely.
The whole "it is random" BS is based on the pre-assigned value of 2 per year. Why pre-suppose that 2 per year is an acceptable norm, that is not problematic in itself?
Consider a US with a mean value of 10,000 mass shootings per year, with the occasional 0, 20.000 or 50,000 etc mass shootings fitting the poisson distribution. Using the same methodology as the article, the same "conclusion" would have been reached, that mass shootings are random.
This is a major misunderstanding at what "random" implies in this context. It just means that the motives and decisions at the individual level to "go for it" are triggered independently and with the specific year bearing no influence. That is, it proves that the specific events are not co-ordinated.
This is mighty fine, but it doesn't at all mean that the cultural / law / etc climate that makes even considering an attempt at one of these events possible (much more for a median of 2 a year) is "random" or non changeable by human intervention.
Way to misapply statistics. As they say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
As an extreme example, in a country where there are no guns (either legal or illegal), there would be no mass shootings AT ALL. No "spontaneous random activity" pertaining to mass shootings could change that.
In a similar, but more practical way, if other western countries have a median of about 0 mass shootings per year for decades (with the occasional exception), this tells us that even if the number of mass shootings per year in the US is random, the fact that it has mass shooting at all is not random but a cultural/structural result.