FBI Study: Deaths in Mass Shootings Increasing

[adit]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29357199#

Study: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/201...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

Haven't read the study yet, but I'm sure it's just in time for "executive action."

 

[Pushrod]

I didn't see a readily identified agenda poking its head out of that study. It would be interesting to see if there is any corelation with shootings in 'gun free zones'.

 

[pwoolford]

Hard to argue against CCW based on this:

 

[EL1227]

Will they counting ISIS-related mass killings ?

Let's get some perspective ...

How can the hand-wringers get all worked up about an FBI domestic report when it pales in comparison to the worldwide slaughter of innocents. After all, the FBI is part of DoJ, and the DoJ is run by you-know-who ... who coincidently sent the FBI to investigate Benghazi. So, to my way of thinking, mass killings like those being perpetrated by ISIS are no different except that they aren't domestic regardless of the insanity that motivates them.

Soooo ... Even though there's no 'perceived bias' in the report, just generating such a report with no valid comparison to the worldwide problem OR a comparison with the massive extent of individual killings during the same time period, smacks of bias in-and-of-itself.

John Lott will have a field day with this.

 

[pilotguy]

The article title is obviously misleading. The FBI study is about active shooters, defined as:

"The study defines "active shooter" incidents as scenarios in which an individual or individuals kill or attempt to kill people in a populated area with firearms."

This means 1+ person is the victim.

 

[ras_oscar]

I used to work for a firm that made industrial components. While waiting for a meeting to begin, I overheard a conversation between the company vice president and their staff statistician. VP asked for an analysis of a certain business situation. Statistician asked what the VP wanted the answer to be. VP said " just do an analysis" statsitician couldn't comply. He said. "the answer depends on how many factors I include I need to know the annswer first" In any study, you craft the data to a predetermined result based on where you draw the data lines, which are arbitrary.

 

[rob-cubed]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The study fails to put it into a larger context. Overall gun deaths are way down and keep falling, in spite of an increase in mass shootings. It doesn't attempt to answer WHY there are more mass shootings now than 10 years ago, which is the real issue here. Without an understanding of causes, there is no path of action to prevent it.

What stands out to me: 70% of incidents in which investigators could ascertain the duration of the attack were over within five minutes. This, and the fact that some 13% of attempted mass shootings were stopped by people--armed or unarmed--really makes a case for concealed carry. First responders are not the first LEOs on the scene, they are the people already there.

 

[john_bud]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The study fails to put it into a larger context. Overall gun deaths are way down and keep falling, in spite of an increase in mass shootings. It doesn't attempt to answer WHY there are more mass shootings now than 10 years ago, which is the real issue here. Without an understanding of causes, there is no path of action to prevent it.

What stands out to me: 70% of incidents in which investigators could ascertain the duration of the attack were over within five minutes. This, and the fact that some 13% of attempted mass shootings were stopped by people--armed or unarmed--really makes a case for concealed carry. First responders are not the first LEOs on the scene, they are the people already there.

I wonder if it's a change in reporting criteria designed to make things look worse?

 

[Mr H]

I wonder if it's a change in reporting criteria designed to make things look worse?

Oh, you mean like counting up to 25 years old as "youth" victims??