Mass shootings since 1/1/2009

[T.Lex]

Sorta updated to reflect Chattanooga shooting, since some reports are that at least 3 fatalities.

 

[T.Lex]

The Lafayette, Louisiana, shooting is a tough call. Thank God, only 2 died (other than the shooter), but 7 wounded.

Interestingly, this graphic was embedded in a BBC report.

Fairly deceptive in what it shows.

 

[T.Lex]

Updated for Oregon community college shooting.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Updated for Oregon community college shooting.

T, just a thought for clarity. In your OP, what would you think about coloring the "non-GFZ" text green or something? This is just a suggestion to make it more evident which ones happened in which type of place. Don't feel like you have to; however you choose to present the info is cool with me. Good thread for info's sake. Thanks for posting it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[AA&E]

Isn't it interesting that the POS...sorry POUS

Pretty sure you had it right the first time...

 

[AA&E]

The Lafayette, Louisiana, shooting is a tough call. Thank God, only 2 died (other than the shooter), but 7 wounded.

Interestingly, this graphic was embedded in a BBC report.

Fairly deceptive in what it shows.

Seems there are quite a few incidents in states with fairly restrictive gun laws... how in the hell did that happen?

Add purple where it applies....

 

[Drakkule]

Once again, a guy with a gun was needed to stop a mass shooting, but they don't want to talk about that side of things.

 

[T.Lex]

T, just a thought for clarity. In your OP, what would you think about coloring the "non-GFZ" text green or something? This is just a suggestion to make it more evident which ones happened in which type of place. Don't feel like you have to; however you choose to present the info is cool with me. Good thread for info's sake. Thanks for posting it.

Blessings,
Bill

I thought of that at the time, but decided for the single color partly as a response to the assertion that ALL the mass shootings were in GFZs. Clearly, that's not true.

Frankly, I almost think the GFZs should be green as an indication that the shooters had open access to victims.

At this point, though, it is probably worth tweaking the paradigm to represent the preponderance of GFZ shootings.

 

[chipbennett]

I thought of that at the time, but decided for the single color partly as a response to the assertion that ALL the mass shootings were in GFZs. Clearly, that's not true.

Frankly, I almost think the GFZs should be green as an indication that the shooters had open access to victims.

At this point, though, it is probably worth tweaking the paradigm to represent the preponderance of GFZ shootings.

It only becomes true when the meaning of "mass shooting" changes. The original assertion applied to spree shootings: i.e. a killer killing unknown people indiscriminately. Including non-fatal injuries, domestic disputes, gang/drug shootings, and the like only serves to conflate the issue.

 

[T.Lex]

It only becomes true when the meaning of "mass shooting" changes. The original assertion applied to spree shootings: i.e. a killer killing unknown people indiscriminately. Including non-fatal injuries, domestic disputes, gang/drug shootings, and the like only serves to conflate the issue.

Where was such a definition adopted? To me, "mass shooting" = "mass shooting." When we start talking about motives - drug debt, domestic issue, whatever - THAT's where things get conflated. Now, I will grant you that counting injuries and not deaths is an important distinction, but it is hard to capture. So, in this thread, I'm only using deaths.

I can easily see how injuring 20 people in a shooting, but only killing 2 (insufficient to meet my definition in this thread) would be important - and possibly even insight into the quality of our first responders or the marksmanship of the shooter - but dammit, Jim, I'm not a statistician!

ETA: even so, with your "original definition" it still wouldn't be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Seattle_cafe_shooting_spree

Just a handful.

 

[chipbennett]

Where was such a definition adopted? To me, "mass shooting" = "mass shooting." When we start talking about motives - drug debt, domestic issue, whatever - THAT's where things get conflated. Now, I will grant you that counting injuries and not deaths is an important distinction, but it is hard to capture. So, in this thread, I'm only using deaths.

I can easily see how injuring 20 people in a shooting, but only killing 2 (insufficient to meet my definition in this thread) would be important - and possibly even insight into the quality of our first responders or the marksmanship of the shooter - but dammit, Jim, I'm not a statistician!

John Lott (Crime Prevention Research Center, More Guns Less Crime) says the number since 2009 is 92%:

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

His criteria are as follows:

In this report, the CPRC looks at mass public shootings since the beginning of 2009. We focus on the attacks that have particularly terrified Americans – the mass shootings in public places. The point of such crimes is to kill people and creating as much carnage as possible to obtain media attention. We focus exclusively on shootings, excluding such attacks as the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. To study these horrific events, we exclude gang fights and shootings that occur in connection with some other crime, such as robbery.1 This is not to say that deaths from gang fights aren’t important, but that what motivates and deters “mass public shooters” is quite different from gangs fighting over drug turf.

The original claim ("all but 2 since 1950") also came from John Lott:

The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

ETA: even so, with your "original definition" it still wouldn't be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Seattle_cafe_shooting_spree

Just a handful.

The Tuscon shooting was an assassination attempt (Giffords), not a spree shooting.
The Lakewood shooting was a targeted shooting (police officers - which I would personally also classify as an assassination attempt).
The Seattle cafe shooting was a revenge shooting.

Of the four, the only one that might fall under the original definition of an indiscriminate spree shooting is the Binghamton shooting.

 

[T.Lex]

BTDT

I found a document that appears to be some of his source material.
http://crimepreventionresearchcente...10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf

It is basically a rebuttal of the Bloomberg "research" on the topic. But, here is how he parses it in that document:

Pg. 25.

The "part of some other crime" is a strange criteria, I think. Basically, he doesn't count a robbery gone wrong or something like that.

Also, he looks only at "public" shootings. Killing 18 people in a home would not count, because it is not public.

It is a definitional issue. IMHO, the more important issue is whether the actual shooting was in a GFZ. Even if in a private residence, the victims would (arguably) have had the right to be armed - they just weren't (probably).

As I said, I've respected and supported Lott and his research, but there's no reason (other than zealotry IMHO) for such a restrictive definition. Even if it is 50/50, the fact that the "system" (either legal or a "house rules" kinda thing) disarms victims is the problem. A certain percentage of the GFZ violence could be eliminated or mitigated simply by NOT BEING a GFZ.

And your Giffords distinction is irrelevant. If Giffords, or her entourage, had been the only target, I could see it. But she wasn't.

Loughner proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.

 

[chipbennett]

BTDT


As I said, I've respected and supported Lott and his research, but there's no reason (other than zealotry IMHO) for such a restrictive definition. Even if it is 50/50, the fact that the "system" (either legal or a "house rules" kinda thing) disarms victims is the problem. A certain percentage of the GFZ violence could be eliminated or mitigated simply by NOT BEING a GFZ.

We agree on the important part: the problem is disarming innocent, law-abiding people - however that disarmament happens (by law, by policy, etc.). But Lott makes a relevant distinction. When people hear "mass shooting", the fear that is invoked is that of sitting in school or in a movie theater, and having a killer come in and start shooting. That fear is incited by conflating the statistics for such events with other types of shootings - and that conflation is intentional. It is intended to drive a political agenda.

The types of shootings that people fear are exceedingly rare, and generally do happen in places where the victims are disarmed.

And your Giffords distinction is irrelevant. If Giffords, or her entourage, had been the only target, I could see it. But she wasn't.

That doesn't change the fact that the motive of the shooter was assassination.

 

[T.Lex]

...But Lott makes a relevant distinction. When people hear "mass shooting", the fear that is invoked is that of sitting in school or in a movie theater, and having a killer come in and start shooting. ...

That doesn't change the fact that the motive of the shooter was assassination.

The motive is irrelevant and actually distracts from the point we are collectively (I assume) trying to emphasize: GFZs are irrational.

Here in Indy, the VAST majority of shootings are felon v. felon. But, the more common that is, the more common the spillover will be. People SHOULD be afraid of mass shootings - wherever they happen - and take appropriate steps toward effective self defense. Where they are thwarted from doing so is the battlefield of moral persuasion.

ETA:
When people here "mass shooting" they don't intuitively think "non-domestic, non-terrorism, non-assassination, non-other crime mass shooting." They think "shooting where a bunch of people were shot."

 

[chipbennett]

The motive is irrelevant and actually distracts from the point we are collectively (I assume) trying to emphasize: GFZs are irrational.

Here in Indy, the VAST majority of shootings are felon v. felon. But, the more common that is, the more common the spillover will be. People SHOULD be afraid of mass shootings - wherever they happen - and take appropriate steps toward effective self defense. Where they are thwarted from doing so is the battlefield of moral persuasion.

ETA:
When people here "mass shooting" they don't intuitively think "non-domestic, non-terrorism, non-assassination, non-other crime mass shooting." They think "shooting where a bunch of people were shot."

But "people here" (i.e. INGO) aren't the target audience for media reports of "mass shootings". The average INGOer knows that the night is dark and full of terrors - that we can't live as free men, exercising God-given liberty, without assuming the risk that comes with evil people exercising that same liberty.

When the nightly news reports breathlessly about "mass shootings", they are playing on a very specific fear. The target audience may not be cognizant that their fear is of "non-domestic, non-terrorism, non-assassination, non-other crime mass shooting"; but in reality, that's exactly what their fear is.

 

[T.Lex]

But "people here" (i.e. INGO) aren't the target audience for media reports of "mass shootings". The average INGOer knows that the night is dark and full of terrors - that we can't live as free men, exercising God-given liberty, without assuming the risk that comes with evil people exercising that same liberty.

When the nightly news reports breathlessly about "mass shootings", they are playing on a very specific fear. The target audience may not be cognizant that their fear is of "non-domestic, non-terrorism, non-assassination, non-other crime mass shooting"; but in reality, that's exactly what their fear is.

Dammit, I hate it when I type phonetically. I meant "hear"... "when people hear."

And I disagree about what the target audience fears. Using my own gun-agnostic (not really anti, but not really pro either) family and friends as a guide, they DO fear domestic issues that pop up in Walmarts, they DO fear AK wielding brown people shouting in foreign languages in public places, ok... they don't really fear assassinations, but if they actually remembered the Gifford thing, they would probably be afraid of shooters going after random people after attempted asssassinations, and they DO fear getting caught in a drive by. These are the things they hear about on the news, more or less.

And, frankly, a certain level of fear of those things is rational, despite assurances from .gov to the contrary. Those of us who value the right to use the most effective tools for self-defense should ALSO be leveraging those fears IMO.

Maybe I'm mis-understanding your point?

 

[chipbennett]

Dammit, I hate it when I type phonetically. I meant "hear"... "when people hear."

And I disagree about what the target audience fears. Using my own gun-agnostic (not really anti, but not really pro either) family and friends as a guide, they DO fear domestic issues that pop up in Walmarts, they DO fear AK wielding brown people shouting in foreign languages in public places, ok... they don't really fear assassinations, but if they actually remembered the Gifford thing, they would probably be afraid of shooters going after random people after attempted asssassinations, and they DO fear getting caught in a drive by. These are the things they hear about on the news, more or less.

And, frankly, a certain level of fear of those things is rational, despite assurances from .gov to the contrary. Those of us who value the right to use the most effective tools for self-defense should ALSO be leveraging those fears IMO.

Maybe I'm mis-understanding your point?

We definitely agree on the main points.

The point of disagreement is in regard to how data are used to push a political agenda, driven by appeals to emotion.

 

[T.Lex]

The point of disagreement is in regard to how data are used to push a political agenda, driven by appeals to emotion.

Do we really disagree on that?

Shouldn't "we" be using appeals to emotion to further "our" agenda?

I guess you're right, we disagree on the methods. In a sense, I think Lott is both diminishing his credibility with his definition by being misleading, and defined by that limitation, ignoring the rhetorical tools that could be helpful.

By the way, I found this site:
Mass Shootings in 2015 - Mass Shooting Tracker

Disagree with their methodology (including non-murderous shootings), but even that could be useful. Even with their definition, I'd bet half or so of those shootings are either in GFZs or states with more restrictive gun possession laws.

 

[T.Lex]

Man, going through that Mass Shootings site is depressing as hell.

Truly, there are more domestic murder-suicides than I imagined. Basically all of them are the men that kill the wife/gf/ex and kids. I just cannot fathom that action.

 

[Bollorollo]

Most seem to be related to criminal gang activity which you probably won't hear much about on the national news since it doesn't work in their favor...