Denver and shootings (Aurora, Columbine: crime rates, home, movie theater)

[Timmyy]

Originally Posted by JrzDefector

No indeed. Mine is purely based on personal experience and basic stats about gun crimes and gun ownership.

You have facts that dispute it then? I'd love to hear them.

All I know is that gun violence was not something I had even brushed up against until I came to Colorado from one of the most densely populated states in the nation (where there has never been a shooting on the magnitude of Columbine or Aurora), but it's been something I have had happen in reasonably close proximity at varied intervals since I got here. I think I made pretty clear this was a guess on my part based purely on personal experience. The OP requested a theory - I offered one.

I came from California two months before Columbine happened. That particular incident could have happened anywhere in the nation. I still felt it was 100 times safer here after that shooting.

What about Sandy Hook? That makes Columbine and Aurora look tiny in comparison.

Columbine and Aurora are 13 years a part. That is not much of a trend to say Colorado has a problem.

[JrzDefector]

Originally Posted by emm74

Anecdotes (your personal experience) are not data and there have been multiple mass shootings in New Jersey, whether you were aware of them or not.

So far in 2017, 2 in Colorado (not in the Denver area, though) and 7 in New Jersey.

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

Please note I referenced magnitude, not frequency.

[JrzDefector]

Originally Posted by history nerd

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...gs-in-america/


Some good information about mass shootings including a shooting density map by type... The trend seems to be that shootings correspond to high density areas. Denver/CO doesn't seem to have significantly more than other areas of similar size. We did have a few of the more famous ones though so that might be influencing your line of thought.

I'd always assumed that it was mostly related to density. But I also believe the availability and prevalence of guns are a factor. Heck, I was even talking with some guys who are native Coloradoans a few years ago, and I mentioned how some have said that people are more polite in Colorado than in Jersey. They joked back "Well, you never know who's carrying here."

[JrzDefector]

Originally Posted by Timmyy

I came from California two months before Columbine happened. That particular incident could have happened anywhere in the nation. I still felt it was 100 times safer here after that shooting.

What about Sandy Hook? That makes Columbine and Aurora look tiny in comparison.

Columbine and Aurora are 13 years a part. That is not much of a trend to say Colorado has a problem.

I don't really feel any difference in "safety" frankly. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, though I'm sure the stats are better for Colorado, at least on paper.

But yes, I think that there is wider acceptance of and access to guns here and, from the perspective of Columbine and Aurora, that it ups the odds that particularly impressionable people with mental health issues will see them as the solution to their problem.

I"m not making a pro-gun or an anti-gun argument here. I'm just saying there are more guns per capita here, they are more common than in other areas and more accessible, and that certain types of people are going to gravitate to them.

Access, after all, was basically how Sandy Hook happened. A guy who was seriously disturbed has access to a particularly dangerous gun and he was basically schooled in how to use it by a rather paranoid mother who never realized that the real threat was in her own house. With more guns per capita, that means people of a certain mentality are more likely to have access to guns, just statistically speaking. In the case of Columbine, that was a definite issue of a disturbed person (and his lackey) having access.

[Port Pitt Ash]

What I was getting at wasn't that it had more, but that the area seems to have less crime than a lot of the other areas where it's happened and that it seems to be so high profile. Although I guess one probably has something to do with the other.

[emm74]

Originally Posted by Port Pitt Ash

What I was getting at wasn't that it had more, but that the area seems to have less crime than a lot of the other areas where it's happened and that it seems to be so high profile. Although I guess one probably has something to do with the other.

And again, is this based on anything besides "seems to"? Yes, there were a couple of high profile incidents here - decades apart if you are basing this on Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting. Do you have data whatsoever to support your claim?

[Timmyy]

Originally Posted by Port Pitt Ash

What I was getting at wasn't that it had more, but that the area seems to have less crime than a lot of the other areas where it's happened and that it seems to be so high profile. Although I guess one probably has something to do with the other.

Less crime has something to do with mass shootings? I guess I don't understand what you mean with your last sentence.

[finsfan21]

Originally Posted by JrzDefector

I don't really feel any difference in "safety" frankly. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, though I'm sure the stats are better for Colorado, at least on paper.

But yes, I think that there is wider acceptance of and access to guns here and, from the perspective of Columbine and Aurora, that it ups the odds that particularly impressionable people with mental health issues will see them as the solution to their problem.

I"m not making a pro-gun or an anti-gun argument here. I'm just saying there are more guns per capita here, they are more common than in other areas and more accessible, and that certain types of people are going to gravitate to them.

Access, after all, was basically how Sandy Hook happened. A guy who was seriously disturbed has access to a particularly dangerous gun and he was basically schooled in how to use it by a rather paranoid mother who never realized that the real threat was in her own house. With more guns per capita, that means people of a certain mentality are more likely to have access to guns, just statistically speaking. In the case of Columbine, that was a definite issue of a disturbed person (and his lackey) having access.

Responding to the bold.

Actually you are. Your whole statement is completely anti-gun. And completely based on no facts or statistics.

[Port Pitt Ash]

Originally Posted by emm74

And again, is this based on anything besides "seems to"? Yes, there were a couple of high profile incidents here - decades apart if you are basing this on Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting. Do you have data whatsoever to support your claim?

Why would I need data? I'm not trying to prove this is the case, but rather why the area seems to be known for it when it's likely other places have just as much or more instances.

Yes, seems to. See I can put it in a sentence like Denver seems to have less crime than Detroit. I could keep going, but you get the point. I don't associate Denver with very high crime and I don't think most people do either. Is there something I should know?

Next I suppose you're going to want data on Texas having crime/"dangerous cities" cities.

Originally Posted by Timmyy

Less crime has something to do with mass shootings? I guess I don't understand what you mean with your last sentence.

Not directly. Point I was trying to make was maybe they standout more since there's less crime there than some other areas.

[jwiley]

Originally Posted by JrzDefector

I'd always assumed that it was mostly related to density. But I also believe the availability and prevalence of guns are a factor. Heck, I was even talking with some guys who are native Coloradoans a few years ago, and I mentioned how some have said that people are more polite in Colorado than in Jersey. They joked back "Well, you never know who's carrying here."

Yet we have less crime and less mass shooting here than Jersey does, so why is that a problem?