Mother Jones: Yes, Mass Shootings Are Occurring More Often

[villager]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-rising-harvard

[Maedhros]

1. Interesting trend.

1982 - 1992: Reagan/Bush were Presidents, shootings less frequent.
1992 - 2000: Clinton was President, shootings more frequent.
2001 - 2008: GWB was President, shootings less frequent.
2009 - 2014: Obama is President, shootings much more frequent.

That might be an artefact of the data, but is interesting nonetheless.

[villager]

2. The "ambient rage" effect from bullying crypto-fascists, when a mere center/right Dem occupies...

...the Oval Office, instead of one of their far-right extremists?

[hifiguy]

6. I think you just may be on to something there.

[Maedhros]

10. That's what I was thinking.

Upaloopa seems to be misinterpreting my post.

[upaloopa]

3. Only interesting if you fabricate some relationship

in your mind

[Maedhros]

9. I've witnessed increasing right wing rage whenever Democratic Presidents get elected.

In the 90's it was the Ward Weaver kind of "militia compound" nonsense, with Obama it's incoherent Tea Party argle bargle. I think it's interesting that mass shootings also seem to follow the same trend.

YMMV.

[upaloopa]

59. You could come up with a hundred things that

match the same trend. That doesn't mean there is any relationship.

[Maedhros]

66. Yes, I know.

That's why I mentioned that it might be an artefact.

[NYC_SKP]

4. More propaganda using cherry picked data to support a desired outcome. Should be in a gun group.

On this matter, Mother Jones is not a reliable source, nor is the LA Times.

The biggest problem with this is the methodology. The way in which data has been collected over the past 30-40 years has changed dramatically.

We never even heard the term "mass shootings" or "active shootings" until only very recently, and then only from the MSM and from the gun control lobby.

From a Time Magazine article:

For many Americans, mass shootings in malls, movie theaters and schools seem commonplace today. They’re fixtures of newscasts and are routinely referenced by gun control advocates in Washington lobbying for more restrictive laws on firearms. But the notion that they’ve been increasing has been mostly anecdotal. For all the discussion of gun violence in the U.S., the federal government has never collected information on mass shootings in one place.

One of the problems, they say, lies with the definition of “active shooter” and “mass shooter.” The FBI report analyzed “active shooter” incidents generally, a term defined by the federal government as an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill others in a confined and populated area. (The FBI report modified that definition a bit to include multiple individuals as well as events in locations not considered “confined.”)

The problem in conflating the two terms, Fox argues, is that an active shooter doesn’t necessarily have to kill anyone. And in fact, only 64 incidents involving “active shooters” met the federal government’s definition of a “mass killing,” in which three or more people were murdered in a single incident. In 31 incidents identified by the FBI report, no one was killed.

snip

If active shooters are removed from the equation, Fox says, mass shootings in fact have not been rising over the last few decades, and both the number of incidents and the number of victims has remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

http://time.com/3432950/fbi-mass-shooting-report-misleading/

[villager]

5. Yes, Skp, in this matter, only your NRA pals, Fox news, etc. are "reliable"

Give the usual apologetics a rest, at least for a day, ok?

[NYC_SKP]

13. Talk about give it a rest. I didn't post a POS biased bullshit propaganda piece in GD.

You're telling me to give it a rest?

I post some facts and sources and corrections and you insult me with NRA association accusations.

Enjoy your day.

[villager]

22. And I have posted some corrections to your "corrections"

enjoy the blood-saturated headlines of your day, too!

[hfojvt]

25. I like how Professor James Allen Fox

became Fox news.

But kinda dangerous these days to write something that says "Fox says" without including a first name or a title.

[NYC_SKP]

26. I had that same thought. Not unlike the poor Professor Bogus.

His attempt to tie the second amendment to slavery was debunked but it still manages to be used as an argument against the right to self-defense.

Professor Bogus!

Now THAT's a coincidence you gotta love.

[villager]

30. No, Fox news is Fox news. Just pointing out the sources that dismiss studies from Harvard, etc.

...on the epidemic of gun violence.

That the refuted critique they use also comes from someone named "Fox" is, well, just an interesting coincidence

[Eleanors38]

48. "Good 'nuff for government work."

[Eleanors38]

28. "3 or more" used to be "4 or more." Mass shooting goal post move.

Just re-define and voila! the problem increases.

The Pentagon pulled this shenanigan some 40 yrs ago when the military budget was approximately 50% of the entire Fed budget. Drop this, change that and now the Pentagon share is much less. Wow. Didn't know gun-ban politics could be so-o-o-o simple.

[NYC_SKP]

49. I have done this, play with different data sets, then select the one that makes your point.

I don't want to use the word "suckers" but maybe the folks at mother jones didn't have the wonderful experience of taking statistics courses in grad school.

If they did, then they need to go back to school.

Or they should be ashamed.

[samsingh]

50. the gun lovers have no interest in facts

only cherry picking to suit their narrative.

of course the methodology is wrong as mother jones shows how many people are getting killed.

btw - it's not relevant that the number of deaths are going up or down to me. The fact is that the cumulative gun deaths are going up. That stat matters. The other stats are intended to appease whatever little guilty conscience a gun lover might have (although very small).

[LanternWaste]

7. What is the objective and specific reason Mother Jones is an invalid source?

What is the objective and specific reason Mother Jones is an invalid source?




"We never even heard the term "mass shootings" or "active shootings" until only very recently, and then only from the MSM and from the gun control lobby..."

Cool-- the NRA believes the precise same thing...
http://www.vocativ.com/usa/guns/war-words-nra-demands-media-use-shooting-describe-mass-shootings/

[NYC_SKP]

8. A pattern of using poorly designed studies to make a point, poor history of issuing corrections. nt

If anyone thinks that only right wing sources fudge the data or are agenda driven, I hate to have to tell them that they're wrong.

All news sources are fallible.

USA TODAY research reveals flaws in mass-killing data

Problem stems from faulty information provided by local agencies

When USA TODAY started investigating mass killings, it seemed a fairly straightforward thing to count: How many times have at least four people died at the hands of another in a single incident?

Yet marking the death toll of mass killings in America is anything but simple. It's hampered by the FBI's voluntary reporting system that gets it right a little more than half the time, and by advocacy groups who may count only incidents that support their cause, ignoring killings that don't involve a gun or did not get heavy media coverage.

Concentrating on just one type of mass killing — or only on those that get a lot of attention — may be worse than just using the FBI data, because it can skew public understanding and lead to ineffective policies, says Grant Duwe, a senior researcher with the Minnesota Department of Corrections, who has written a book on mass killings based on a data set he built covering the 1900s.

"Accurately accounting for mass killings — having a definition, sticking to the definition, trying to find all the incidents — that may seem somewhat pedantic but it's actually very important."

More at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/03/fbi-mass-killing-data-inaccurate/3666953/

[villager]

16. "Fox claims based on flawed research"

NYC_SKP is using year-old critiques, which themselves have been critiqued:

<snip>

Some earlier media reports asserted that the rate of mass killings has not gone up. That claim, the Harvard researchers said, is based on what they call flawed research by Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox.

Fox's research uses a broader definition of mass shootings that includes any killing with a gun in which four or more people were murdered. That includes domestic shootings that take place in a private home, and gang-related or drug-related killings.

Mark Follman, Mother Jones' senior editor, explained why the distinction in the definitions is important.

"Our focus has been on public attacks as opposed to domestic attacks," Follman told The Huffington Post. "Domestic killings are no less serious, but they are a different kind of problem. It’s terrible when a mentally disturbed person slaughters his whole family in his home, but that’s different from indiscriminate killing."

Follman did not take part in the Harvard analysis, but Mother Jones provided the data upon which the findings are based.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/mass-shootings-tripled_n_5992702.html

[NYC_SKP]

18. Oh, My! Huffington Post!!! ROFL!!!

Oh good Lord!

Whatever shall I do now?

[villager]

20. As opposed to your year-old articles from USA Today!?

What high-level refutation, my water-carrying gun apologist friend!

[NYC_SKP]

23. December 3, 2013 is invalid????

Oh, heavens!

What's invalid are the methodologies that attempt to quantify or qualify or draw conclusions from data over more than 13 years that use newly invented terms, like "active shooter".

And then to pretend that the FBI is infallible.

RU series?

Maybe we should militarize the police!

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[villager]

24. you're pretending one, lone criminologist is infallible and the FBI, Harvard, Mother Jones, et al,

are all wrong.

Got it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. From what I can see

he simply objects to the point that people are studying certain kinds of mass shootings as opposed to 'all' of them. So things where people are getting shot by acquaintances or strangers in public places is up, but I guess at the same time, mass domestic shootings are down, maybe, so the 'top line numbers' aren't moving all that much.

Seems like a 'meh' distinction to me. I guess it means people who hang out with a lot of relatives who shoot are a bit safer, while the general public is a bit less safe.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. So? They didn't do the research on which they were reporting, people at Harvard did.

Does that mean any time somebody at DU posts on something that somebody on HuffPo also posts on, you automatically discount the DU posting as well?

[villager]

29. Exactly

n/t

[A Simple Game]

62. What should you do now? Well if I were a person that was in love with my guns

I would be looking seriously at any gun control compromise that would save some of my ability to have guns.

This trend shows a rapid movement towards a tipping point, one in which gun owners will not like the outcome. The desperation in your posts leads me to think you realize it too.

Don't think the 2nd amendment will save you, there are as many ways around that as there are interpretations. The present interpretation favors gun owners, that could change overnight.

[valerief]

43. Flip-flopper Fox.

“A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters,” Fox says. “A majority kill fewer than three.”

If active shooters are removed from the equation, Fox says, mass shootings in fact have not been rising over the last few decades, and both the number of incidents and the number of victims has remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

First, he wanted teen murderer Rod "murder for thrill" Matthews kept behind bars, then he wanted him released.

Now, he wants to dismiss stats to fit his narrative.

[villager]

53. According to him, then, the "mere" murder of one other student (so far) today

...doesn't "count" as a "mass-shooting."

[valerief]

63. Or two or three murders

[nomorenomore08]

64. "Propaganda" in support of what? Universal background checks and licensing/registration?

OMG how terrible!

[NYC_SKP]

11. USA TODAY research reveals flaws in mass-killing data:

Mother Jones probably won't let facts get in the way of their outrage, but I wish they'd so some fact-checking before they post.

USA TODAY research reveals flaws in mass-killing data

Problem stems from faulty information provided by local agencies

When USA TODAY started investigating mass killings, it seemed a fairly straightforward thing to count: How many times have at least four people died at the hands of another in a single incident?

Yet marking the death toll of mass killings in America is anything but simple. It's hampered by the FBI's voluntary reporting system that gets it right a little more than half the time, and by advocacy groups who may count only incidents that support their cause, ignoring killings that don't involve a gun or did not get heavy media coverage.

Concentrating on just one type of mass killing — or only on those that get a lot of attention — may be worse than just using the FBI data, because it can skew public understanding and lead to ineffective policies, says Grant Duwe, a senior researcher with the Minnesota Department of Corrections, who has written a book on mass killings based on a data set he built covering the 1900s.

"Accurately accounting for mass killings — having a definition, sticking to the definition, trying to find all the incidents — that may seem somewhat pedantic but it's actually very important."

More at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/03/fbi-mass-killing-data-inaccurate/3666953/

[NYC_SKP]

12. More errors in the study found by USA Today.

Among the errors USA TODAY found:

Several mass killings were reported as unrelated single homicides.

At least a dozen crimes were mischaracterized as mass killings. In one case, several unrelated homicides a week apart were reported as a mass killing.

In nearly a dozen cases, USA TODAY — searching media reports and interviewing local law enforcement agencies — could find no record of a murder, even when the FBI data showed as many as seven killed. Among them: a quintuple murder in Newark in 2010. What actually happened: Police arrested two men in connection with the murder of five teens in 1978 — 32 years earlier.

Several cases handled by federal agencies were not included, including the 2009 Fort Hood massacre.

Florida and Native American reservations do not report homicides to the FBI. Nor did Nebraska or Washington, D.C., until 2009. USA TODAY found at least a dozen such cases. They were not counted in the error rate, however, since their absence is well-documented.

USA TODAY's data debunks common beliefs. For example, it shows that the number of mass killings has not increased in recent years; most occur among family members; and handguns, not assault weapons, are most commonly used.

"Hopefully, it'll raise folks' awareness," Duwe said. "There was this view that mass killings were so infrequent that their infrequency makes them unimportant. But the cost to society is enormous. It justifies a lot more attention into the topic than has been the case."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/03/fbi-mass-killing-data-inaccurate/3666953/

[villager]

17. Year-old critiques - -which themselves have been critiqued:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/mass-shootings-tripled_n_5992702.html

[One_Life_To_Give]

14. Public Health Vs. Criminology

Of note should be the difference of how two disciplines approach the same data. While agreeing with Prof. Fox about the total number of mass murders. The Public Health researchers focus on one particular set of characteristics for which the incidence is increasing. Correspondingly it would be interesting to know which is decreasing. Are there fewer gang related mass murders? Or are individuals not confining their executions to just family members to the same degree as before? Perhaps it is the absence of a identifiable family that causes some to lash out at society at large, in it's place.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Oh, shoot, that NRA lovin' NY Magazine says the numbers and stories are misleading, too!

Dang!

Why You Shouldn’t Fear the Rise in Mass Shootings

Some of the coverage is conflating two different things: mass shootings and active-shooter incidents. Mass killings or shootings, per the government's definition, are single incidents in which three or more people are killed. Active-shooter incidents, on the other hand, occur when “an individual actively engage[s] in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” (Researchers tweaked this language a bit for the FBI report so that incidents involving more than one shooter and incidents occurring outside were included, and incidents clearly involving drug or gang violence were excluded.) Unlike mass shootings, they don't necessarily involve anyone being killed.

So not every active-shooter incident is a mass-killing incident — 40 percent of the incidents the report captured were mass killings. The Times fails to make this distinction. “Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years,” writes Michael S. Schmidt. “There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006.” This is simply false. The report clearly notes that the 16.4 number refers to active-shooter incidents, not mass killings. For the 2007 to 2013 span, the actual number of mass shootings per year is about six.



While there's been a short-term increase in one very specific, narrowly defined kind of violence, the overall homicide rate in the U.S. (the purple line) is on a long-term downward trend that includes the period covered by the FBI report. Mass shootings account for a tiny, tiny percentage of the total murders in the country — in 2012, the worst recent year for mass shootings, just 0.6 percent of total murders, according to the FBI's 2012 homicide numbers.

Overall, when it comes to violence the country is safer now than it has been in decades. Obviously there’s still much vital work to be done when it comes to gun control, understanding why violent people snap, and so on. But talk of “sharp increases” in terrible, shocking, but extremely rare crimes promotes an alarmist view of the world that doesn’t quite match the facts.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/09/why-you-shouldnt-fear-the-mass-shooting-rise.html

[Hoyt]

19. Gungeoneers will clutch their gunz closely this weekend.

To them, and right wingers everywhere, this is just the price we must pay for their need for more gunz in more places.

[villager]

21. Hey, they're angry after every mass shooting too -- only not at the shooting!

They're angry when anyone dares question the prevalence of Lord God Gun in our society!

[randys1]

32. Listening to Signorile on XM, gun folk calling in who take their concealed weapon with them

to the movies, etc.

We have a mental disability in this country with guns, it is causing death and destruction and worse than that is the gun clutching types are making this into some huge issue when the issues are climate change and economics.

Their insistence to incorrectly interpret the 2nd amendment and own all these guns is an issue we just dont need right now.

[villager]

36. The gun fetishists are a mental illness unto themselves...

..and emblematic of how little chance there is, really, that this country can solve bigger problems...

[valerief]

44. I don't know how they sleep at night

with their gun barrels up their asses.

That's love, I guess!

[randys1]

45. Yep, but if we cant how can India or China etc?

Climate change is a bigger issue than all other issues combined times ten million, unless you are starving then I guess that is more important.

[Eleanors38]

35. Actually, you got something right...

The Liberal Gun Club meets in Austin, TX this week end, and we reserved a portion of the shooting range we will be using. Lots of fun shooting will be had by all! Then BBQ!

[villager]

37. Hey, you actually got something right too!

Presumably, the calendar date of the "guns are wicked cool!" club meeting!

[Hoyt]

38. You gonna be using targets that resemble humans again? Have fun blasting away.

[Eleanors38]

40. Unlike some here, we hope to hit paper & clay...

Others hope for the deaths of those who support the Second Amendment.

There is a source, posted today, backing that up. Care to see it?

[randys1]

46. 2nd Amendment calls for all guns to be removed to a well regulated militia

[hack89]

52. No it doesn't

The bill of rights is about individual rights. Every one of them. Read the Democratic Party platform if you have any questions.

[randys1]

56. Seems like plain English to me...

[hack89]

57. You mean our party platform

And the President's remarks supporting it? Yes - very plain English.

[Hoyt]

47. What would be nice is if you put your guns away, and discussed how your "hobby" is hurting society.

[hack89]

54. We can do it over a beer or two ... oh wait a second. nt

[Hoyt]

55. I know, gungeoneers prefer to shoot than worry about how your bad habit affects others.

[hack89]

58. No. I just know what kills young people where I live. nt

[jtuck004]

33. Hate is occurring more often. n/t

[Eleanors38]

39. Even MJ noted around 60 mass shootings over a decades' long period...

Then they got busy with their new statistical shell game and added themselves to the ranks of crap "reporting" -- when it comes to guns.

[uppityperson]

42. What were you going on about yesterday about Turkey and HOA?

[NYC_SKP]

51. I'll guess: Home Owners Associations frown upon deep frying Turkeys on the premises?

People can get hurt!

And it's no party for the turkey!

[greatauntoftriplets]

67. Horses on asteroids?

Heavenly oat acres?
High on acid?

[Old Codger]

61. Population

100 million people a percentage of whom are nuts, 200 million people a percentage of whom are nuts, 300 million people a percentage of whom are nuts. The percentage doesn't have to change to end up with a larger amount of nuts spread across the nation...

Something that looks to be a lot different is when I was growing up and someone did something, messed with your girl or bullied your pal it may have ended up with violence but that violence was usually a few punches thrown a fat lip, bloody nose and some skinned knuckles, now they bring out the artillery.

[nomorenomore08]

65. The current homicide rate is actually about half what it was 20-25 years ago.

Whether the proportion of homicides by gun has changed, I don't know. All I know is that most European countries have both far stricter gun laws and far lower violent crime rates compared to the U.S.

I don't think gun control is a total panacea, by any means, but I figure universal background checks and some form of licensing or registration couldn't hurt.