Congressional Research Service Releases Study of Mass Shootings
One criminologist's reaction: "This report should calm the fears that many people have that these numbers are out of control."
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has just released a report on mass shootings, drawing on two large chunks of data. The first is the FBI's series of supplemental homicide reports from 1999 to 2013, as buttressed by various scholars who have done their best to fill the gaps and fix the errors in the police statistics. The second is a dataset assembled by Grant Duwe, a criminologist at the Minnesota Department of Corrections and the author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History. Duwe—who tells me he thinks the CRS "did a really good job"—looks specifically at mass public shootings, and his data go all the way back to 1970. (We'll get to the distinction between "mass shootings" and "mass public shootings" in a moment.)
What does the study have to tell us about these sorts of crimes? Here are some questions it answers:
Have mass shootings become more common?
Slightly. The average number of mass shootings was a little bit higher in 2009–2013 than in either of the previous five-year periods, and the average number of casualties was more substantially higher. (*) The study attributes both increases essentially to one outlier year, reporting that they "were largely driven by a few incidents in 2012. If 2012 were excluded, the averages would actually have been lower than the preceding five-year period."
James Alan Fox, an expert on mass murders who teaches criminology at Northeastern University, says the clearest pattern in the study's data is simply "a great volatility in the numbers. There's no solid trend."
Do most of these shootings look like Columbine?
There's a number of different definitions of "mass shooting" floating around out there, but the CRS report defines it as any gun crime where four or more people are murdered in a single incident. Most Americans process the phrase more narrowly than that: They think of random shootings in schools, at work, and in other public places. The CRS describes these as "mass public shootings," and it distinguishes them from two other categories: "familicide mass shootings," in which the murderers kill family members, usually in private spaces or in remote and secluded settings; and "other felony mass shootings," which are committed in the course of another crime (such as a robbery) or common circumstance (such as an argument that gets out of hand). In theory, these categories can overlap, but the CRS researchers assigned each incident to just one category. (**)
Just as most shootings are not mass shootings, most mass shootings are not public shootings. There have been an average of 4.4 mass public shootings per year since 1999. The figure for familicides is 8.5 and the other-felony count is 8.3.
If mass public shootings are less common than other mass shootings, why do they inspire so much more fear?
Public shootings tend to attract more press coverage than familicides. (The same day a gunman killed two strangers in a Louisiana movie theater last month, two teens in Oklahoma were arrested for stabbing five family members to death. The Louisiana story got much more attention.) Family murders also tend to spark a different set of emotions. After an apparently random public massacre, the CRS report notes, people frequently think "It could be me." With familicides, "there appears to be a counterrationalization, 'It would never happen to me.'"
With the "other felony" category, the authors add, "a significant percentage of those incidents are drug- or gang-related, or involve persons engaged in other risk-laden, illegal activities. Because of this, there is sometimes little collective sympathy in afflicted communities for the victims."
Have mass public shootings become more common?
Using Duwe's data, the CRS found an increase in the number of mass public shootings since the 1970s: There was an average of 1.1 incidents per year in that decade, 2.7 per year in the '80s, 4 in the '90s, and 4.1 in the 2000s. The shootings also became a bit more deadly over the same time period, with '70s shootings killing an average of 5.5 people per incident and '00s shootings killing 6.4. (***)
Those are raw totals, without taking population growth into account. If you look at the number of victims per capita, the average has gone up a little from 1970 to today but the numbers are so small that the fluctuations are essentially statistical noise. "Basically, there is no rise," says Fox, the Northeastern criminologist. "There are some years that are bad, some that are not so bad."
The following chart from the report shows the number of mass public shooting victims per 10 million Americans from 1970 to 2013. As you can see, it has gone from oscillating between 0 and 1 to oscillating between less than .5 and just over 2. As if to underline just how unusual these crimes are, the chart also shows the rate of all gun murder victims in the same time period. (****) That figure's been falling for two decades:

Is there a larger lesson here?
The report shies away from finding a broad message in the data, but Fox—who praises the study as "very thorough"—sees a moral here. "No matter how you cut it, there's no epidemic," he says. "This report should calm the fears that many people have that these numbers are out of control."
(* Specifically: From 1999 to 2003, there was an average of 20.8 incidents per year, with 95.8 people killed and 22.4 wounded. In the next five-year period, the average number of incidents fell negligibly to 20.2, the average number of people killed went up to 99, and the average number of people wounded declined to 19.4. And in 2009-2013, the number of incidents increased to 22.4, the number of people killed went up to 116, and the number of wounded rose to 46.6.)
(** For example, the data include four shootings that could have been classified as familicides but were instead counted with the mass public shootings because of where they took place.)
(*** There are obvious problems with comparing a four-year period to several 10-year periods, particularly when it includes what may be an outlier year. But for the record: From 2010 to 2013, the average number of incidents per year was 4.5, with 7.4 people killed per incident.)
(**** That rate is per 100,000 people, not per 10 million. The two trendlines have to be scaled differently because mass public shootings represent such a tiny percentage of gun murders.)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Goddamnit, when do we get our ration of Trump news.
I WANT MY TRUMP NEWS, REASON!!!!
Well, he had to fire a staff member when people found a Facebook post where he told a bizarre joke about Obama calling his daughters the n-word.
Donald Trump de Trump. Trump de Trumpity Trumpy Trump. Until one day, the Trumpa Trumpa Trumpatrump. Trump de Trump da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Donald is Da Trump Dee Trump Da Teetley Trumpee Trumpee Trump. Rated PG-13.
There, that ought to hold you for a while
Like an eyedropper of water for a man lost in the desert for weeks!!!
But thanks, WTF - you care. And that's.....something....
LOL.
"Congress release study in light of mass shooting epidemic, calls for public awareness."
Yeah, people who go around in fear of mass shootings are not the types to be swayed by a rational assessment of the facts.
Yeah and telling people why the "1/4 college womynz get raped" statistic is bogus will silence the patriarchy conspiracy theories.
You didn't need two different scales for that last graph. The units were the same (per 100K people), and the were not so disparate as to be off each other's charts.
okay, I misread that
But still, combining the two should put the red line into perspective (it is infinitescimal on the murder rate chart)
The point isn't really comparing absolute numbers but trends of each. Firearm murders are falling while mass shootings have risen only slightly and are highly variable year to year.
(Because waylaying fears about the supposed epidemic might assuage the gun banner crowd, but merely saying that mass shootings are a tiny component of overall firearm murders isn't very persuasive for people who insist that firearm murders are reason enough to dismantle the second amendment.)
I caught that too, but it's grammatically correct and true. Casualties are higher by a more substantial margin than frequency, which is only mildly higher.
Goddamnit, Jesse, there's no way I'll get my wife to sign off on another purchase if you continue to tamp down on pants wetting hysteria. I need a fear gripped nation. Shootings up, ebola rampant, rape epidemic. Got it?
You mean a Walking Dead marathon isn't enough to convince her?
Force her to watch Hannity and the O'Reilly Factor for 24 hours a day for a whole week. She'll be believing disease carrying Mexican rapists whole kept the Fast & Furious deal guns are going to be entering your home any moment now.
*who kept
At the very least it might persuade her that, however we handle gun ownership, investing so much authority in the feds is probably the worst idea.
Speaking of Fast and Furious, the muzzie who tried to shoot up the Mo Cartoon event in Texas had a Fast and Furious gun.
You can't make this shit up.
Classic.
Is "muzzie" a thing here now or are you reminiscing about a certain xenophobic troll?
The only people I have ever heard say "muzzie" were themselves Muslim. Not sure if that is useful information.
Maybe it's their word and we can't use it, like nigga or nerfherder.
Who's scruffy looking?!
I prefer the correct spelling: mozzie. NOT to be confused wiht "mossie", the Brit pejorative for mosquito. Mozzies are about as pesky buyt many times more deadly.
Whut?!
No shit?
How could I have not heard about this since it was all over the news?
Is that true? Anywhere that is verified?
S
That would backfire b/c she hates those guys. John Oliver's doing a good job with rape stats though. When's the mass shootings episode, Mr. Oliver??
Speaking of, where's Papaya?
I was shot by an ebola-infected rapist.
Or, wait....was I raped by a guy with an ebola gun?
Eh, either way...true story.
I was marginally involved in a Seattle Times comment section on the subject of guns. People actually believe that guns are autonomous spirits with their own evil intent.
Well maybe your's isn't. Mithral metal is used quite frequently in other parts of the galaxy
That would explain all the scratch marks on the inside of my gun safe.
in Seattle that is likely true. Most other places not quite so much.
DEATH AND DESTRUCTION LURK UNDER EVERY ROCK AND AROUND EVERY CORNER.
BE AFRAID, AMERICA.
Bah, if it's that common, we need to harness this abundant natural resource!
But it seems to be running out. We must have hit peak D&D years ago. Maybe we need to invest in more sustainable natural causes, like famine and disease and hospital waiting lists.
We did with the 2nd edition. But 4th edition sucked. 5th isn't too bad.......
the clearest pattern in the study's data is simply "a great volatility in the numbers. There's no solid trend."
Who cares about probability? You could be next.
You could will be next. News at eleven.
And the latest to jump on the gun-grabbin' bandwagon - slut-comedian Amy Schumer - who is related to the scum-senator Schumer.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l.....un-control
I see that as an empty PR ass covering after the last public mass shooting happened at her movie.
Just what the gun-control movement needs in order to be taken seriously: More air-headed Hollywood celebrities.
"two teens in Oklahoma were arrested for stabbing five family members to death."
But wait, I thought this was all the fault of guns?
They used bayonets.
Mounted on assault rifles. Thank the heavens for clip laws.
"Basically, there is no rise,"
Basically, there is a rise. The article makes it very clear. 1.1 incidents in the 70's to 4.4 this century. And the rise is all the more noticeable against the backdrop of a steady FALLING in general gun crime over the same period.
"No matter how you cut it, there's no epidemic," he says.
I agree, however, you'd think an ambitious criminologist would seize the chance to study why Americans more and more often are taking up their firearms and killing strangers in public for no apparent reason. It's a question that has no good answer, at least that I've heard.
study why Americans more and more often are taking up their firearms and killing strangers in public for no apparent reason.
Because more and more Americans.
"Because more and more Americans."
But more and more Americans are committing less and less gun crime. It's right there on the chart. Unless it's these public shootings, and they are increasing. Can you explain this or are you content to wave these incidents off as 'statistical noise?'
A highly variable number with only a slight upward tick does not a trend make, and certainly doesn't suggest an epidemic. And there's no reason to suppose that public shootings or mass murders are a product of gun violence, so the decline in the latter rate doesn't necessarily suggest a decline in either of the former.
I should say a reduction in the incidence of either of the former, since it's tough to peg a decline in a number vacillating around no clear baseline.
"only a slight upward tick does not a trend make"
An increase from 1.1 to 4.4 is not a slight uptick. It is a four-fold increase, as I say, against a backdrop of falling gun crime. That may not be a trend or epidemic, but it doesn't have to be in order to catch our attention.
I get what you are saying, believe me. Much the same can be said of murderers by Muslim fanatics. In the seventies there were few, if any. Today there are more. Not a statistical trend, but does that mean we have the luxury of ignoring the phenomena of Muslim shooting like Major Hassan etc? I think not, and these murders need to be examined more closely.
An increase from 1.1 to 4.4 is not a slight uptick.
I thought this was clear, but apparently not: Fox was referring to the population-adjusted figures.
"I thought this was clear, but apparently not"
No need to repeat yourself. I got it the first time. Fox goes on to say:
"This report should calm the fears that many people have that these numbers are out of control."
It's a straw man. I doubt "many people" fear that these numbers are out of control. I think this phenomenon is real and deserves closer attention, just like the recent Major Hassan-like incidents. And unfortunately, statistical analysis such as is offered here, doesn't answer any of the interesting questions. Statistical analysis writes off these incidents are mere statistical noise. You need to turn to other tools in your tool box.
What's that, handwaving, question begging, and special pleading? Somehow population-adjusted statistics that vary wildly year to year and offer little meaningful statistical interpretation one way or another can be interpreted differently by ignoring them as statistics?
You've made the straw man here by insisting that anyone is saying those figures are tolerable or proper. But as a counter against a claim made by media hysterics, it's absolutely worth pointing out that these numbers are not outsized, all else held equal.
"What's that, handwaving, question begging, and special pleading?"
Please, you must be more specific if you expect an answer from me.
"Somehow population-adjusted statistics that vary wildly year to year"
Measure these public shootings against general gun crime, and you don't see wild variation. Instead you see a steady increase. How are we to interpret this. As Princess Trigger says, at one time, wiping out one's family was THE big act that Americans could perform. Now it's wiping out strangers in public. How do we account for this change? Statistics aren't going to help us much, I'm afraid.
"You've made the straw man here by insisting that anyone is saying those figures are tolerable or proper."
You've misunderstood. I said these acts are dismissed as statistical noise. I think that says more about the limitations of statistics as a tool for analysis that it does about public murder.
"But as a counter against a claim made by media hysterics, it's absolutely worth pointing out that these numbers are not outsized"
You're right about that, but if you've read me right here, you'll realize that I'm not interested in media hysteria etc. I'm interested in what motivates people to kill strangers in public.
"You're right about that, but if you've read me right here, you'll realize that I'm not interested in media hysteria etc. I'm interested in what motivates people to kill strangers in public."
No you're not interested in what motivates people to kill strangers in public. Be honest. You are interested in blaming white males for SOMETHING, ANYTHING to stay with your in crowd for BBQ invites.
Flash mobs have increased(YouTube) and black on white crime has skyrocketed (DOJ stats) in that same time frame. It seems that racial violence has increased. Hmmmm...I think we may be on to something. How many stories have used race in the title of their article on Slate in the past 5 years, and then compare against the 5 prior to that. Wholly SHIT!!!
So, this:
but then:
What about this phenomenon, which doesn't show an increase that can't be accounted for by a margin of error, is more interesting than, say, that of being struck by lightning or shot by a cop, both of which are statistically more likely?
"What about this phenomenon..."
First, because it is increasing, both in raw data, and as a portion of the total gun crime. You could ask the same question about Major Hassan-like incidents. They are vanishingly small in number, yet still deserve to be recognized, analysed and discussed. Whether they can be accounted for by margin of error is not really relevant.
These incidents are more interesting than lightning strikes or cop shootings because we have a pretty good idea about how lightning strikes work, or what is likely to trigger a cop shooting. These public murders are not so well understood. That's what makes them more interesting than lightning strikes. I know many here are content believe they are the work of the mentally ill, but I suspect those who say this are just parroting what they read in the press, usually by writers who have neither expertise in mental illness nor had the opportunity to examine the perpetrator.
But it isn't increasing, or at least not by an amount that can't be explained away as sampling variance or margin of error. And police shootings are a phenomenon which is both on the rise and directly exacerbated by government policies related to police conduct. I mean, go ahead and try to find a single causal factor that ties together the statistically rare and disparate mass public shootings that occur each year, but there are other problems that are more serious and likely simpler to address if we're talking about preventing needless deaths.
" if we're talking about preventing needless deaths."
I'm not talking about that now, or at any time. I'm interested in understanding the motivations behind the increasing number of public murders. I believe that any answers we might come across should be interesting and might reveal something about our society. Cop shootings might also be interesting but I don't think there is much mystery behind their motives. Lightning strikes are even more banal.
I understand your point that statisticians have little to say about rare events like public murder, but that doesn't mean the phenomenon, like terror attacks, doesn't warrant thorough analysis and discussion.
See my lengthier response below, but, in short, what I'm saying is that statisticians aren't able to draw conclusions about the phenomenon because it is not in fact a phenomenon any more than all yellow-colored animals are related.
- "An increase from 1.1 to 4.4 is not a slight uptick. It is a four-fold increase"
And an increase from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase!
There's a term you should look into: "Statistical significance".
Most people have a script, that gives them a general guide to how they go about living. It takes generations for those scripts to change. It's why I, a middle class, middle-aged man can live a life that isn't so different from the life my father lived. Very little variation. A few people go off their script - or choose another. But it's really hard to write a totally original one.
Murderous lunatics also have scripts. Different cultures have different scripts for their murderous lunatics. Sometimes it's just a flashy suicide, or hacking a prominant politician with a sword, or strapping on a few blocks of c4 and blowing up a market. In America, if you are a murderous lunatic, killing your family used to be the big act. It's transitioned to the public shooting of lots of strangers.
"Murderous lunatics also have scripts"
I think that blaming 'murderous lunacy' for these crimes is a cop out. And it doesn't tell us anything interesting or important about the phenomenon. I see your point about the 'big act' shifting from the family to strangers, but why? Blaming it on mental illness just washes your hands of the responsibility to look into the matter more carefully.
There isn't anything interesting or important about the "phenomenon." Who gives a shit? Why are you such a voyeur you need to study the thoughts of murderers? I'll bet you watch a lot of those Lifetime shows about women snapping and killing their husbands or those A&E shows about crime investigation.
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU. There's no reason you need to study this shit in detail. Your hobby is morbid and disturbing.
- "I think that blaming 'murderous lunacy' for these crimes is a cop out. And it doesn't tell us anything interesting or important about the phenomenon."
Yeah, there's nothing interesting or important about root causes.
search out the side effects of psychotropic drugs, and the correlation between their usage and the incidents of mass public shootings. The restuls of such a search will warm the curious cockles of your heart... or not.
It's a question that has no good answer, at least that I've heard.
.
Video games.
Rap music.
Gay marriage.
Deep dish pizza.
Anti-Christian art.
You'll have to pry my deep-dish pizza from my greasy, sooty fingers.
You heathens will burn in hell for all eternity for the heresy that is "deep-dish".
NY Style is the one, true pizza!
What an idiotic argument.
The problem is clearly with people who put beans in chili.
"Video games..."
I don't find any of those persuasive. You didn't mention easy access to guns, a candidate bruited about elsewhere. You didn't mention mental illness, the favourite candidate among Reason readers, I believe. I don't find those persuasive either.
shooting a bunch of random people is an insane thing to do, so anyone who does it is insane. qed
Except when politically-motivated terrorists do it.
Or the cops, who are too distracted by pants-shitting hysteria to focus on aiming at the perp rather than the dozen or so bystanders around him.
"shooting a bunch of random people is an insane thing to do"
Depends on the motive, doesn't it? What is motivating the shooters? You won't get very far answering that question (disregarding for a moment that the shooters often take their own lives) if you insist on palming these murders off as acts of the mentally ill. It's especially strange to see this on a Libertarian board which usually takes a strong stand on personal responsibility. The charge of mental illness is the easiest, quickest way to absolve a person from personal responsibility for their acts.
This isn't a Libertarian board.
/pedant
/pet peeve
/DRINK!
Mental illness is a reason, not an excuse. A person can be unbalanced or unstable or what-have-you and still criminally liable. Some people might shoot random people in public for reasons of domestic terrorism, some might do so because they're irrational and unstable. The incredibly small sample size makes it difficult to establish a pattern.
"The incredibly small sample size makes it difficult to establish a pattern."
Start with individual cases then. They do exist. As I mentioned previously, perhaps statistical analysis is not the best tool for establishing what motivates these murders.
Right, but if the sample size is so small that you can't identify a trend, there isn't a trend. These are causally unrelated incidents which share superficial traits in common.
"These are causally unrelated incidents which share superficial traits in common."
Same could be said of any type of crime. You're not really making any new ground here that I can see. A small sample size will definitely frighten off a statistician. But a criminologist should have other tools at his or her disposal: interviews with the perpetrator, their family, police at the scene, the witnesses and victims, public records and so on. More time consuming and difficult than what Jesse presents here, but given the small sample size, infinitely more revealing.
If the sample size is too small to talk about causal patterns, there aren't causal patterns. You're talking about interviewing witnesses as part of an investigation, which is a means to a completely different end.
"which is a means to a completely different end."
My end is a clearer understanding of what motivates people to murder strangers in public. I understand that statistics will only take us so far and no further. Perhaps interviews with the perpetrator and witnesses etc might help. It is an absolutely fundamental part of police procedure for a reason, after all.
Right, but any evidence you get is only applicable to the specific instance. Because even if you're talking about anything that constitutes a mass public shooting you're counting gang violence, domestic terrorism, genuine mental illness, and a number of other situations. That's the point I'm trying to make here. The investigation of a crime tells you about that crime, not about all crimes that share anything in common. Investigating a single murder in a parking lot doesn't tell you about all murders where the victims were killed in a parking lot, for instance.
Even counting those numerous disparate causes you still wind up with a terribly small sample size. If you then isolate within that sample situations which are domestic terrorism (the Maj. Hassan instance, for example) you're only going to be able to draw conclusions that are relevant to domestic terrorism. And what will you learn? That domestic terrorism is pretty much just terrorism. Then there's stuff like the Navy Yard shooting. Probably falls under the heading of mental illness, which, again, does not imply a lack of responsibility. Then there are more conventional family murders and organized crime slayings. Anything you might learn about the one will be inapplicable to the others, so what's the point? It's just navel-gazing.
I appreciate that you're looking for a unifying theory or some sort of common relationship but you're associating crimes with each other that aren't related in a meaningful way.
"Right, but any evidence you get is only applicable to the specific instance."
That's not the basis of criminology, economics, sociology, linguistics, or any other of the social sciences. Study a sufficient number of individual cases and some surprising and counter-intuitive facts about humans in general just might come to light.
"Because even if you're talking about anything that constitutes a mass public shooting you're counting gang violence, domestic terrorism"
In these cases, the motivations are clear. I'm interested in the cases where the motivations are obscure, like shooting fellow patrons at a movie theatre, for example.
"I appreciate that you're looking for a unifying theory or some sort of common relationship but you're associating crimes with each other that aren't related in a meaningful way."
I get what you are saying about the dangers of this search for common patterns. It's the same as any application of inductive reasoning, isn't it? Whether these apparently motiveless murders of strangers in public have anything in common is a question we can begin to answer after we ask it and start to dig around. Until then I think it's mistaken to assume that these crimes are not held together by some linking thread, some hidden motive or causal factor.
- "Study a sufficient number of individual cases and some surprising and counter-intuitive facts about humans in general just might come to light."
You seem to be repeatedly missing the point regarding the "sufficient number of individual cases" part.
"easy access to guns"
This implies that guns are easier to purchase now than in the past. Which is provably false.
OK "access to guns" then, if the word 'easy' offends your sensibilities. Apologies. A warning though, outside of Reason, it's not uncommon to see people commenting on the ease with which guns can be obtained. And it's just another step to link this to these public shootings. My advice: don't buy into this argument, I don't think it holds any water.
Yes, and it's typically people who've never tried to buy a gun and have a bias against firearm ownership. On Stormfront it's not uncommon to see people commenting on the inferiority of non-whites. That doesn't mean those opinions are worth serious consideration.
"That doesn't mean those opinions are worth serious consideration."
I'm not interested in the opinions or the shopping habits of people who attribute this phenomenon to access to guns. I have other fish to fry here.
- "You didn't mention easy access to guns..."
- "I'm not interested in the opinions or the shopping habits of people who attribute this phenomenon to access to guns."
Now I understand your dismissive hand-waving on the mental health aspect of all this. You seem to be suffering from a bit of schizophrenia yourself.
- "outside of Reason, it's not uncommon to see people commenting on the ease with which guns can be obtained"
It's not uncommon to see people saying a lot of stupid emotion-driven nonsense. Is that a justification for doing so yourself?
the last public mass shooting happened at her movie.
.
But he didn't even shoot the projectionist, dammit!
Just out of curiosity, do these figures include mass shootings by cops?
They'll release the Waco Biker massacre tapes when the investigation is over.
Oh come on! You know they... oh wait, you got me there. Man Poed, but good.
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com
The charge of mental illness is the easiest, quickest way to absolve a person from personal responsibility for their acts.
.
I neither know nor care what you're driving at, but that's bullshit.
"I neither know..."
In a court for example you can avoid paying for your crimes if you can convince a jury that you are insane, and therefore not responsible for your actions. Now you know. My advice: watch more TV.
Not in my state.
Does your state fry retards?
- "My advice: watch more TV."
It looks like we've found yet another one of your problems.
How about some statistics like:
Number of mass shootings in "gun free" zones vs "conceal carry" zones?
Number of mass shootings by illegal possession vs NRA members?
Number of mass shootings by people on medication vs. no history of mental problems?
If you see a pattern that most mass shooting are performed by people with a history of mental illness in gun free zones, we can leave the stable, legal gun owners alone! And get rid of stupid gun free zones! You're just advertising that people are defenseless.
The reason mass public shootings inspire more fear is that they generally involve randomly selected targets (much like serial killers). Crimes with understandable motives are different because most people figure that they will never inspire such crimes, but random killings cannot be prevented that way. One thing that would help, which no gun prohibitionist would ever consider, is getting rid of "gun-free" zones, which are actually an invitation for would-be mass killers (James Holmes, for example, went not to the largest or nearest theater, but to one with an explicit "no guns" policy).
Setting the cutoff at 4 or more just happens (pure coinkydink) to exclude most of the incidents in settings that were similar except for one detail: whether or not there was a concealed-carrier present who had no criminal record. When there is, the body count usually doesn't break the threshold.
This is the kind of article that probably won't get read as much, but will be great to link to in online debates with people about mass shootings. Save the link, people!
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08.....ings-study
I'd like to know if an when the tendency to count the shooters suicide towards the number of victims in the mass public shootings became a thing. I suspect that that may acocount for the victim average rise, for some reason especially since I have recently seen a couple of shootings reported as mass shootings, that only qualified if the perpetrator's suicide was counted towards the victim total.
This study excludes the shooters from the casualty counts.
Just looking at the graph, one can see a distinct rise in the 1980s. It was in the 1980s that psychotropic drug use increased significantly. One can see a direct correlation between the increased use of psychotropic drugs and the increase in mass shootings.
However some of these mass shootings did not really occur, such as Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was a "false false flag" event, in that the shooting there reported in the media did not actually take place. It was a staged event.
Nevertheless, the study should have started earlier to verify the rise in shootings in the 1980s that correlates to the increased use of psychotropic drugs.
...do what now?
You had me at "distinct rise".
I'll be in my bunk.
"Mass shootings went up slightly" should be very little cause for concern, considering just how much the population grows (compared to elsewhere) in the country. The place gained 16 million more people since 2008, or Obama's first year.
America's immigration policy is massively gray and it categorically rejects shame based culture, so it has to occasionally deal with islamic radicals and deranged individuals (abandoned by their families) who occasionally shoot up people.
What planet is he from? The report will be ignored by both Democrats and Republicans.
I wonder how many mass shootings included cops.
That is, mass shootings by cops.
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com
Does it occur to anyone that "great volatility in the numbers" is just what really unlikely things look like? It something happened once last year and twice this year, that's a hundred percent increase while still being so rare that worrying about it would be neurotic. When articles talk about "crises" just in percentages (unlike this article; see your local newspaper on the heroin epidemic ) it makes me awfully skeptical of their criticality.
How To Buy OmiseGo in India
How To Buy Ripple in India
How To Buy Stellar In India
How To Buy Tron In India
How To Buy Verge in India
How To Buy Zcash in India