Crime

The FBI Says 'Active Shooter Incidents' Are On the Rise. What Does That Mean?

Decoding a new crime study

|

Click 'n' read.
Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI released a report today suggesting that "active shooter incidents" grew more common from 2000 to 2013. Reason readers may wonder how to square that conclusion with the statistics we've published suggesting that mass shootings are not on the rise. There are two answers to that. One involves some potential problems with the FBI's numbers; we'll get to those issues in a moment. The other answer is simpler: "Active shooter" and "mass shooting" do not mean the same thing.

You're forgiven if you didn't get that impression from the press coverage of the FBI report. The Wall Street Journal, for example, called its story on the study "Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI Says." The New York Times said "F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000." The Huffington Post went with "FBI Study Finds Mass Shootings On The Rise, Often End Before Police Can Respond." The Daily Beast didn't just use the headline "FBI: Mass Shootings Are on The Rise"; every single sentence in its brief article includes the phrase "mass shooting" or "mass shootings."

While there are competing definitions of mass shooting out there, they all cover crimes that wouldn't fit in the FBI's list of active-shooter incidents; the FBI's count in turn includes events that no one would call a mass shooting. The standard government definition of an active shooter is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area." (It doesn't mention firearms, but the word shooter obviously excludes other means of murder.) The authors of the FBI report tweaked this definition slightly, dropping the word "confined" because they didn't want to leave out crimes committed outdoors. They also excluded killings connected to gang rivalries or the drug trade—a major difference between these numbers and the mass-shooting statistics assembled by criminologists like James Alan Fox, one of the country's leading authorities on mass murder. (For Fox, a mass shooting is basically any homicide with a firearm that leaves at least four people dead.) Another major difference: Rather than basing its definition on how many people were killed, the FBI report focuses on homicidal intent. If the perp only wounds his victims, or if he doesn't even manage to do that, he still gets counted. Fewer than half of the incidents in the FBI report qualify as mass shootings under Fox's definition.

At any rate, the FBI found 160 incidents, which together left 486 victims dead and 557 wounded. (The casualty figures do not include the shooters themselves, though they are often killed or kill themselves in these attacks.) In the first seven years, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually; in the last seven years, the figure was 16.4. The bureau also shows the number of casualties increasing over time. Here are the year-to-year data in a couple of charts:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Those are raw numbers, not per capita figures, but by my back-of-the-envelope calculations you still see a rise in the casualty count if you adjust for population growth.

So is it true that these incidents are becoming more common?

Fox isn't convinced. "Unlike mass shooting data," he says, "which come from routinely collected police reports, there is no official data source for active shooter events. Necessarily, these data derived from newspaper searches for the term 'active shooter' and similar words. Not only is the term 'active shooter' of relatively recent vintage (although created after the 1999 Columbine shooting, it wasn't used much in news reports until the past two years), but the availability of digitized and searchable news services has grown tremendously over the time span covered by the data. Thus, it is not clear whether the increase is completely related to the actual case count or to the availability and accessibility of news reports surrounding such events." Fox acknowledges that the new study draws on police records as well as press accounts, but he says the cases still have to be initially identified by searching news reports, "with police department records helpful for the details." (Sure enough, when the FBI paper identifies its sources, it cites several studies that rely on such searches.)

Grant Duwe is skeptical about the numbers too. Duwe is the director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections; each year he compiles a list of mass shootings that take place in public and are not a byproduct of some other felony. (He would not, for example, include a stick-up man who shoots several people while fleeing the police.) His figures show a steady an unsteady decline from 1999 to 2011 and then a spike in 2012, which is not the pattern you might expect from those active-shooter numbers. While he appreciates some aspects of the FBI's report—he singles out its "detailed breakdown of the specific locations where these incidents occurred"—he has issues with it as well, noting that 10 of the mass shootings on his list are missing from the new study. (These omissions appear throughout the period covered, without being clustered at either the beginning or the end.) "Given that incidents involving fewer victims generally attract less attention," he adds, "I imagine the amount of underreporting for these cases is greater." Since the FBI's list "is neither a random nor an exhaustive sample," he concludes, "it's inappropriate to make any claims—which this report does—about trends in the prevalence of cases meeting their definition." He thinks it possible that such a rise has happened, but he doesn't think the report proves it.

For Fox, a vocal critic of the way the phrase "active shooter" has come to be used, the chief concern is that people understand that "these events are exceptionally rare and not necessarily on the increase." While he fully supports serious efforts to prevent and prepare for such crimes, he also thinks it "critical that we avoid unnecessarily and carelessly scaring the American public with questionable statements about a surge in active shooter events."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

84 responses to “The FBI Says 'Active Shooter Incidents' Are On the Rise. What Does That Mean?

  1. FBI says incidents they call “active shooter incidents” are on the rise

    FTFY

  2. I know utilitarian arguments are really important to some people, but I’d still support the Second Amendment even if more people were getting shot.

    I’ve got a qualitative preference for freedom–that’s one of the big reasons why I’m a libertarian. Yeah, that qualitative preference probably has a limit, somewhere, but we’re nowhere near that.

    Incidentally, I support the First Amendment rights of racists–even if that means more people are drawn to that stupidity. I support Fourth Amendment rights–even if that means more terrorism. I support the Fifth Amendment for accused arsonists, murderers, and rapists, too–even if that means more of them get away with it.

    You get the picture.

    There are all kinds of problems with utilitarian arguments for liberty. The list starts with the observation that neither I nor my Second Amendment rights exist for the benefit of society, but near the end of the list, there’s something about how just because something is a greater good over long periods of time, that doesn’t mean it’s definitely a net benefit at any one point in time…

    If and when the statistics come out and show that mass shootings are more frequent because of the Second Amendment, how many libertarians would suddenly turn against it?

    If the answer is “almost none”, then we should probably preface every statistical observation on the Second Amendment with something to that effect.

    1. I know utilitarian arguments are really important to some people, but I’d still support the Second Amendment even if more people were getting shot.

      Of course. I support people’s right to own a car, the proliferation of which has caused a large number of people to be killed in auto accidents. Eliminate cars, eliminate car accidents. Perfectly logical.

      We give up a certain number of things so that society can maintain its freedom.

      We give up bits of safety and comfort all along the way. But in the end, humanity is richer because of it– and ultimately safer and… more comfortable.

      1. We give up a certain number of things so that society can maintain its freedom.

        As alwyas: F ? S = k. The product of Freedom and Security is a constant. To gain more freedom of thought and/or action, you must give up some security, and vice versa. –Niven

        1. After travelling through and living in a number of other countries, I greatly disagree.
          Freedom and security appear to be highly independent variables. If anything, the relationship is inverse of Larry Niven’s assertion. Thugocracies don’t suppress criminal behavior. They join it and suppress the recording of it.

          1. I’ve always liked this Niven quote more on a personal level, rather than a societal one, but having lived and traveled in other countries myself I don’t think that it’s entirely off there, either.

            I know what you mean about Thugocracies (or at least, Eastern European sorts that I’ve experienced) but I also felt that there was a much greater ability to fly under the radar if one so chose. I think the key in understanding what Niven was after (or at least my impression of it) is that at the societal level we do not always get to pick the specifics of the equation. One could argue that in a Thugocracy that one is nearly free of constraint due to the legal authority’s conduct rendering itself illegitimate, while being almost totally insecure due to its conduct, though there are problems with that view as well.

            In the end, I guess I just find it to be a handy reminder that there are trade-offs in life, and not everything that goes wrong is an indication that the underlying idea behind it was wrong.

            /resumes drinking

            1. Photography (back in $film$ days) taught me about trade-offs, including the fact that while necessary, usefully and even inescapable, they are often wasted if not taken with care and expertise.

              While I did travel in Europe, most of my experience was in Latin America and the Asian Tigers, plus a few years in the former Soviet-satellites.

              Security typically amounts more to Security Theater and cowing the public than actually making things secure. The larger effect appears to me to be that it teaches the evil and good alike to skulk, truckle and feign blindness.

      2. “We give up bits of safety and comfort all along the way. But in the end, humanity is richer because of it– and ultimately safer and… more comfortable.”

        I think people get confused about who our rights belong to and what they’re for.

        Sure, things generally go better for a society when people are free, but our rights aren’t a collectively held thing that’s existence depends on being in everyone’s mutual interests…

        A society where people are only free to do things that are in everyone’s best interests is not a free society.

        My rights belong to me, and they’re for my benefit. My right to free speech isn’t for your benefit. In fact, I might use my free speech rights to criticize you or harm your interests. Neither I nor my rights exist for your benefit.

        …and neither I nor my rights exist for society’s benefit either.

        You and your rights don’t exist for my benefit either. They’re for you to use. That’s why I don’t have a right to violate them. Violating them would be wrong becasue they belong to you. Preventing you from using them in any way that doesn’t benefit me or all of us is just another way to violate them.

    2. I’m with you. Laws should be based on rational principles, not polls or stats.

      I understand the idea of pointing out negative consequences of unjust laws, and I have been known to do just that, but at the end of the day, none of the outcomes really matter.

      It’s plain immoral to hunt humans down and cage them for possessing inanimate objects, or having impure thoughts/motives. This is true regardless of the statistical outcome of the policy.

      1. Yeah, and it matters if talking about the statistics implies that my rights only exist if some statistical analysis supports them.

        Imagine if we had a conversation about, say, reinstating slavery. Before we had that conversation about whether it’s economically beneficial to the majority of people to reinstate slavery, and have the descendants of slaves become the property of the descendants of their original owners, shouldn’t somebody mention something about how slavery is wrong because it totally violates the rights of millions of people based on a stupid, racist premise?

        I think so!

        In fact, I’m going to come down so hard against slavery on moral and libertarian grounds, that we’re probably never going to get to that statistical economic analysis. I mean, I don’t give a damn about whether reinstating slavery is statistically in anybody’s interests–slavery is a fundamental violation of the principles of people’s rights…

        Violating people’s Second Amendment rights is also wrong regardless of the statistics.

    3. I would turn against rights-based society if it were shown that having rights degraded the overall quality of life. If right-based thinking made the world a living hell, why would anyone be for it?

      1. So, if I could convince you that legalized murder improved the “overall quality of life”, you’d support legalizing murder, right?

    4. “Yeah, that qualitative preference probably has a limit, somewhere, but we’re nowhere near that.”

      For discussions sake, what is that limit?
      Keeping in mind that “gun rights” fall along a curve from arming up with almost no limits to the stricter stuff like we have in MA…..and none of them are bans or confiscating your arms….

      So, let’s say we had a rash of incidents where mass shooters shot up Disney World and some major NFL games…..and 200-500 people died in one year, but worse yet millions are now in fear of any crowds.

      Would that make the needle move?

      What would?

      I suspect if the big school shootings didn’t change anything that there is no needle for many people. They wouldn’t care if 1,000 or 2,000 innocent folks got shot (frankly, that stats are much higher than that now).

      But the calculation could change if commerce (sports, schools, etc.) end up being hurt by it. We may have a choice of staying home and cuddling our arsenals or living a civil and public life…one or the other.

      1. All of this ignores the fact that, statistically, an average American is less likely to be a victim of a homicide (with a firearm or otherwise) today than at basically any point in the past.

        It’s completely and willfully oblivious to the fact that the homicide rate since the founding of our country has been steadily trending downwards, and recent years are no exception.

        So, your false dilemma (“staying home” vs “cuddling our arsenals”) is completely disconnected from reality.

        That’s why gun control get so little traction.

    5. “Incidentally, I support the First Amendment rights of racists–even if that means more people are drawn to that stupidity. I support Fourth Amendment rights–even if that means more terrorism. I support the Fifth Amendment for accused arsonists, murderers, and rapists, too–even if that means more of them get away with it.”

      I’m against gun control, for the right to privacy and for jury trials, but I don’t agree with those things because some people wrote them into a Constitution over 200 years ago. That would make me a moron. If the second amendment banned all ownership of firearms I would be against it.

      What kind of crazy philosophy do you have? It’s ok to follow the federal government blindly as long as they said something 250 years ago? Well, I suppose retards have to vote too.

  3. It’s true. Wasn’t there an active shooter in a WalMart detailed right here on Reason today? He picked up the air rifle, put it down, the cops rushed him and then there was active shooting.

    1. http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..d-his-gun/

      This one?

      Cops Escape Charges For Killing Walmart Shopper Holding A BB Gun Sold At The Store

  4. Will this be the FBI’s Hockey Stick?

  5. Oh boy, this is the worst time to post Dunphy bait.

    1. Below here lies madness!

      1. The word you are looking for is TRUTH, … But not truthiness

        Hth

  6. Great example of the reason double standard.

    The same federal agency not too long ago released a report coming to the conclusion that Seattle police department was out-of-control in UOF, same report justifying greatly expanded federal power issuance of a consent decree and federal oversight of the local police function in Seattle. I didn’t see a single analysis of the report itself the statistics involved with the methodology etc. why? Because the conclusion supported reasons ideology that police forces are out of control in the use of force and not subject to proper judicial review or punishment when they transcend what should be the boundaries any just society. I strongly doubt and saw no evidence for and ample evidence against the idea that any of the posters here read the actual report let alone analysed it critically as is done here because the conclusion supported a prejudice held by reasonoids. Ideologues are ideologues and whether it’s feminists unquestioningly supporting the official narrative in the duke case The reason editors and readers unquestionably supporting the official narrative in the SPD case, the syndrome is the same

    1. Contrast the Reason response in the Seattle police analysis to their response in this case. Same agency making the analysis but since the conclusion doesn’t correlate with Reason prejudices and ostensibly supports unsavoury policy, we have the complete opposite response – a detailed intelligent and robust study of both the methodology used as well as the underlying data employed to draw this conclusion.

      This is the danger of thinking Like an ideologue.

      1. The issue is not whether The FBI was wrong vis-a-vis the Seattle police Department or in this analysis. The issue is they get entirely different levels of scrutiny to put it gently. More correctly they got zero scrutiny when it came to a conclusion that supported reason ideology about cop use of force. Instead of reflexively disagreeing with me because after all I’m Dunphy, honestly ask yourself – why did I accept the FBI’s report without question when it came to Seattle police use of force but when it came to this report got involved with such delicious scrutiny and questioning of their authoritativeness in both methodology of collecting and analysing data?

        1. This is the danger of being an ideologue. We see this over and over from the Super Bowl Sunday DV emergency room myth unquestioningly repeated w/o question, to the duke rape account unquestioningly supported despite it’s increasingly apparent smell test failure, etc.

          Again, the issue is not – was the FBI equally careless or biased in analysis of SPD use of force as they allegedly are in school shooter analysis

          1. And of course even if they were, their conclusion COULD still be correct despite the fact that their methodology was unsound or invalid, … The issue is we all suffer and truth suffers most of all, when we disparately accept the validity of a conclusion based on whether we want to believe it, not based on (as objective as possible- true objectivity is a goal but not ever truly 100% possible) objective analysis of premises (evidence) and validity of analysis of same.

            1. “Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.”

              ?Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1938), 28.

              Don’t let the cloud control you!

              1. 6! Well, somebody certainly got his button pushed.

                1. Same syndrome, different day. Thank god for voice to text. Spewage? Easy. Typing? Not necessary

                  1. How’s it goin’, Dunphy?

                    1. Chill in’ with the villains, thanks. I will have an interesting story to tell but must remain circumspect for a bit. Suffice it to say I have suffered some slings and arrows from Copocrats and some great victories thanks to my union… And I won a lawsuit! As I have said, there are proper venues for redress of grievances, and the truth has a way of getting out!

                      With luck, I’ll be wielding a body camera soon. My goal is to get our patrol officers at least ALLOWED to wear them.

                      Imnsho, many admins fear body cameras because it diminishes their power to arbitrarily mess with those in disfavour. They also allow us (cops and union) to more effectively seek redress against those who wilfully lie to place officers in jeapordy.

                    2. Awesome!

                    3. I think the evidence is aiming towards Mary, at this point. I’ve never seen Dunphy do the 6 post wall of text screaming at the air thing.

                    4. Brah, it’s me. I didn’t use to use voice to text. I’ve engaged in some wall o’ text on occasion, but typing sucks. Technology opens up my inner voice. As an extremely successful verbal judoka (no suspect complaints in over 20 yrs), I don’t perform my inner voice on patrol – EVER.

                      It’s a key to my success.

                      Here otoh? Cathartic, and fun

                    5. It’s him. I recognize the “brah”.

              2. Don’t let the cloud control you!

                Take it easy old-timer

  7. To understand “active shooter” one must first understand “passive shooter”.

    A passive shooter is a police person:
    “A weapon was discharged”
    “shots were fired”
    “A person was struck”

    An active shooter is everyone else:
    “The perp fired 6 shots”

    1. I heartily agree. I have repeatedly bounced back recruit case reports due to passive voice.

      ‘Johnson was placed under arrest.’

      NO!

      ‘Ofc Z placed Johnson under arrest.’

      There are rare examples where passive voice is preferred but in almost all cases those who use the passive voice in a police report are at best using jargon and at worse are obstructive of relevant information by hiding the subject IF known.

      In a case where an officer writing the overall narrative does not know the detail then it’s entirely appropriate to use the passive voice to leave the subject unidentified and let the officer who is the subject clarify that it was him in his officers witness statement.

      But in my experiences in most cases where the passive voice use is chosen it is not the correct decision.

      My experience is that it is one of the most common errors. I’ve seen lawyers do it too but it’s primarily a cop disease.

      Sadly there are still some dinosaur FTO’s think it is appropriate but we have tried to correct it out of the system as much as possible. Old habits die hard. Some come from an era where even the third-party narrative writing was promoted or even required. When I worked undercover I fought it ias much as possible but it was practically still a requirement in my agency

      ‘This officer observed’ vs. ‘I observed’. Seriously!

    2. To understand “active shooter” one must first understand “passive shooter”.

      And don’t forget “inactive shooter”, which is what’s left after a “passive shooter” deals with an “active shooter” a purported “active shooter” is dealt with by a “passive shooter”.

  8. http://www.policeone.com/inves…..ffic-stop/

    Awesome! Cop body camera helps get conviction of this fucknut for resisting. Without it there would’ve been one of the he said she said nobody knows what really happened issues, but the body camera evidence clearly establishes the Used excellent position proper warnings and that the situation was escalated to the rest situation solely by the drivers behaviour not the officers.

    In my state Violators don’t need to sign a citation and most likely if a person was acting like this I would just advise them I would Mail the citation and walk off but in states that do require the signature the officer is entirely within his rights to issue reasonable demands for compliance and is not obligated to engage and endless debate with the motorist as to why. It was a good rest and she demanded her jury trial and got it and the conviction was just.

    Perfect example of why we need body cameras and perfect example of the lengths that which some violators will go to to try obstruct the issue such as her completely bogus claim about miscarriage when it turns out she was not even pregnant but was just trying to use that to

    1. Intimidate the officer obstruct the issue and get out of an arrest by feigning a medical condition.

      We had a case once where a suspect faked a serious medical condition which required substantial state and private resources to handle, tied up in emergency room doctor etc. when evidence was collected that allowed state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she willingly fabricated the entire thing, she was charged and convicted of obstructing. That usually warrants a small fine but the judge actually gave her a couple of days because he found the behaviour so egregious. She was quite wealthy and my understanding was there was also some civil action that I do not know the result of in order to try to recover costs that are normally sucked up by the emergency medical system, since she fraudulently created the appearance of a medical emergency resulting in coded fire and ambulance response etc etc. truly repulsive

      1. FYI, “legal” and “just” are not synonyms, in fact they are likely to be antonyms.

  9. Wouldn’t cell phone usage have something to do with this trend? Cell ownership has, what, tripled since 2000? Thus, a shooting that in 1997 wouldn’t have been discovered till after perhaps, becomes “active” when 3 people can call 911 and report it as being in progress. I only quickly perused the report, so maybe this doesn’t hold for the definition, but its a thought.

    1. It also strikes me as a bizarre interval – 2000 to 2013? Why not include 99 and make it 15 years? Unless that interfered with the pretty graphs

    2. You’re not very old are you? We had cell phones in 1997, lots of them. Most didn’t have cameras or internet, but they called just fine.

      1. You’re not very old are you? We had cell phones in 1997, lots of them. Most didn’t have cameras or internet, but they called just fine.

        I had a phone in ’97. I wasn’t alone, but I was one of few.

        I know, at the time, if I wanted to do something or reach someone, the phone was 2nd or 3rd priority rather than 1st. Namely because I was one of few, but also because network coverage was pretty spotty and everyday stuff like concrete and drywall interfered with the connection. Most relevantly, 911 was useless at the time, especially if you wanted or needed a 2-5 min. response time.

      2. Not that the prevalence of phones in 1999 was exactly his point, as opposed to whimsical data collection, either.

        1. I too had a cellphone in 97, but if I were in some kind of “active shooter” situation, I suspect that phone would be more useful as a bludgeon than a phone.

          1. That’s because the knee jerk max panic reaction hadn’t been ingrained in us yet.
            In the 90’s there was a lot more fight back and a lot less helplessly calling the authorities.

            Everyone I knew had a cell phone by 95 even. We only used ’em as regular phones, though. I, personally was semi-luddite about it, and held off til the mid nineties. Of course, this was in L.A. Perhaps a more rural area would have been different?

            1. Coming from one of those rural areas, I can assure. You that it was different. My phone worked only in places where the NIMBY’s hadn’t totally fucked over the cell tower erection effort.

      3. You’re not very old are you? We had cell phones in 1997, lots of them.

        Please note that I didn’t say there were no phones in 2000. I said use had maybe tripled. Assume around 350 million in use today, thats me saying there were over 100 million in use then. But how many were carried constantly? How many people, even those who owned them, were never without them like today? How widespread was coverage? It was just a thought that maybe people being able to report an active shooter, while she is still active, leads to more cases of, “an active shooting incident.”

        1. I got evacuated in the North Hollywood shoot out. Everybody had cell phones and called everyone they knew. Mine was sitting on the table when I got ordered outside by the police.

          In 1996, at the Laughlin River run, So many people used their cells that the system froze, because it was a rural area inundated with 20k visitors. The first day, phones worked great.

  10. What’s the difference between an active shooter and an inactive shooter?
    Can someone do a similar study on inactive shooters so we can get a comparison?

    1. An inactive shooter is the active shooter for his whole life before he goes active. Kinda like a sleeper cell.

      Or maybe an inactive shooter is one who’s out of shape, kind of chubby, not much exercise?

    2. It’s very complicated. If a person is shooting a gun, they are active, if they are just holding it, they are inactive.

      Say you fire a gun into the air, at that moment, you are active. Then, you run about a hundred feet with gun in hand, but not firing, now you are inactive, even though you are running.

      Also, if you are using your gun as a bludgeon, you are still inactive, unless the weapon discharges when you bonk the other fellow on the head, at which point, you’d technically become active.

    3. An inactive shooter is any gun owner who hasn’t shot anyone YET. Because as “everyone knows,” all gun owners are ticking time bombs who some day will give in to the power of the Totems they own and just. have. to. use. it… MUST… KILL!!!! EXTERMINATE!!!!1

    4. That’s the strangeness of the terminology. From what I can tell, “active shooter” just means “shooter”, provided the shooter is trying to hit a person.

      When I 1st heard the term, I thought it meant “someone who, after the cops arrive, is still shooting or threatening to shoot a person or persons”. Like someone in a standoff situation.

  11. I found most interesting that gang and drug related shootings ‘don’t count’. Is the FBI admitting that their statistics are racist because they don’t consider black-on-black crime as significant as any other? (yes, I know that is a stereotypical assumption, but since the FBI doesn’t include this data, we can’t determine the percentage of gang related violence that is black-on-black, can we?)

    While I suppose gangs do us a favor in ‘culling their ranks’, particularly in Gangland (Chicago), innocent bystanders are often gunned down as well.

    Oh, that’s right… including *these* type killings would illustrate the failure of progressive nostrums since LBJ.

  12. Somewhat related is this study of mass shooting on how badly twisted the statistics are by requiring at least four dead. If you instead count all shootings where it seems obvious the killer wanted to keep on killing but was caught early, you find that far more early stops were by civilians* than by cops, for the obvious reason that civilians* are the true first responders, and cops are too busy calling for backup and waiting for the shooting to stop.

    *Take your whines about “cops are civilians too” elsewhere. I know the difference, you know the difference, everyone knows the difference.

    1. for the obvious reason that civilians* are the true first responders

      I’ve heard the term zeroth responders.

      I think heroes would work just as well.

      1. Zeroth responders — I like that. Should it be spelled zeroeth? I shall have to experiment and see which generates better nazi grammar complaints.

      2. I should also add a fun story. I worked at a company which decided they needed a new slogan. This was when Ford had comeout with “At Ford, quality is job number 1.” We suggested “At xxx, quality is job number 0.” They didn’t like it.

  13. He mentions two possible reasons.

    He doesn’t mention the third – that Reason is a tool of propaganda.

    Not claiming which it is, but when trying to solve problems you have to take all possibilities into account – it’s only Reason-able!

  14. Maybe if the cops stop shooting people for little or no reason that number will drop significantly.

    1. In L.A., last year the cops killed 10% of all shooting fatalities. Stop them and gun deaths drop by that amount. BTW, doesn’t include beating deaths or forced “accidents” (which did occur)

    2. Cops have gun. More guns mean more accidents and murders. Period.

      You can’t have guns and then stop them from existing. Either you have them or you don’t. If you carry them for protection, etc. accidents will happen.

      1. “If you carry them for protection, etc. accidents will happen.”

        I’ve carried a gun for over 30 years, and I spent a number of years where I had either a rifle or pistol or both, on my person, 24/7/365. I’ve never had an ND, and I’ve never shot anyone who wasn’t shooting at me first. There are no gun “accidents”, only gun negligence. Guns don’t magically point themselves and fire.

  15. While he fully supports serious efforts to prevent and prepare for such crimes, he also thinks it “critical that we avoid unnecessarily and carelessly scaring the American public with questionable statements about a surge in active shooter events.”

    But how else do you expect the government to keep the public sufficiently cowed? Overhyped threats from ISIS? Fear of losing their jerbz to Meheecanz? Global warming hysteria? Has Judge Napolitano hacked my account again?

  16. ‘Active Shooters’ fall into the same propaganda hole as ‘1 in 5 college women will be raped’.
    It is all an attempt to exert some form of control over the masses by an Elite that wishes to be unaccountable for their mis-governance.

  17. When the government starts publishing studies on incidents that are so narrowly and, not to mention, oddly defined, one has to wonder what their motivation is. Its the FBI, so it’s not a purely academic study, unless the FBI academy is now a university. I’m sure there’s a “we need more tanks” aspect to this study that we haven’t seen yet.

    1. Or, more likely, there is a “we need to reconsider the second amendment” aspect of this study written between the lines.

  18. “What does that mean?”

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!
    As they say in another context:
    It doesn’t matter who turns out to vote, it only matters who counts the vote.
    The FBI, who couldn’t be bothered about Moussaoui and friends, is the last group that should be believed about this subject.
    They lied about Weaver, they lied about Waco, why would we believe their ‘study’?

    1. “They lied about Weaver, they lied about Waco”

      Are you saying it would be a better world with Koresh in it and still arming up?

      1. Are you saying that it would be a better world if the government would launch more seventy-six person BATF raids that result in kids being burned to death for what was ultimately a tax collection case?

        1. “seventy-six person BATF raids that result in kids being burned to death for what was ultimately a tax collection case?”

          The kids are lamentable. The armed cultists were not as much. The problem is that when the mentally ill (Koresh) want to die “by cop”, our society will always appease them.

          Sure, it shouldn’t have been done that way – which is why Obama was more restrained with the Bundy criminals. At the same time, if any church started arming up with automatic weapons I’d have some concerns.

          Religious “end of times” cults and lots of weapons don’t go together too well. Just saying…..

  19. If “Active Shooter Incidents” include the police shooting innocent citizens, then, yes.

  20. Does that statistic include government shooters too?

  21. my classmate’s mother makes $73 hourly on the computer . She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her payment was $15449 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    over here ====== http://WWW.JOBSFISH.COM

  22. Great Article, Keep sharing such stuff which increase awareness.

    i provide email extractor lite 1.4 and lite 1.6 software online

  23. this is sad and why this is happening in this world phone detective lookup and whatsapp spy services

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.