“Since 1976, there have been ups and downs in incidents but there has been no trend upward or downward in mass shootings.”
- Prof. James Alan Fox, Northeastern University.
I can’t believe Holder let them do this… (Incert surprised face here)
At least this administration is consistent. They are always working against America.
President from Chicago and an anti-Gun AG.
No surprise.
As one leftist writer (whose name escapes me) put it: Truth is not necessarily what is factual, truth is what needs to be believed for the best interests of society.
These guys swallow that lock, stock, and barrel.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”. Adolf Hitler
We really need someone besides Lott as an advocate. This Fox fellow seems ok.
I’ve been researching and following active shooter incidents pretty carefully since Columbine. I’ve read just about all the reports and articles on the subject, from NYPD, DOJ, PERF, ALERRT, etc. during that time. It just so happens I am currently revising our course materials on active shooter to reflect one and two officer response rather than the more traditional team concept - something I’ve been advocating for several years. Credibility?
The problem, as was stated in the story, is in the definition. The FBI and NYPD studies are true to their definitions, but do include incidents I would not consider active shooter incidents. Those incidents do fall under the mass murder definition though.
The issue I have with their methodology is the reality that LE really cannot do anything ‘special’ to thwart the guy who kills his family at Thanksgiving dinner, then goes down the street to get his cousins.
However, a guy that walks into a public place/business and starts shooting people should be considered an active shooter, regardless of motivation. This is the definition we use to trigger an active shooter RESPONSE, rather than reporting:
• One or more subjects who participate in a random or systematic shooting spree, demonstrating their intent to continuously harm others;
• The overriding objective appears to be that of mass murder, rather than criminal conduct such as robbery, kidnapping, etc;
• The definition of an active shooter can include any assault with a deadly weapon causing a mass homicide.
Strictly speaking, this definition could include the Thanksgiving dinner scenario I listed above, but I think to get usable data addressing the threat you need to winnow out strictly familial, non-public events.
Active shooter incidents ARE increasing. If you look at the ‘clustering’ of such incidents it should become clear that there is a copycat effect going on - I feel largely due to widespread news coverage of these events. It is not a new, or original to me, suggestion by any means, but we need to stop naming the perps and giving them national recognition. Run that by CNN or Fox and see where that gets you.
Unlike Alan Fox, I don’t think acknowledging we have an increase in these incidents is necessarily a 2nd Amendment issue. As Jeff Cooper once said about condition white - ‘You can’t solve a problem unless you know you have one.’
Definitions have been, are and will continue to be the downfall of statistical analysis, especially given that nobody reads and understands them. Technically since we aren’t at war soldiers getting killed in asscrackistan are victims of mass murder.
The fact that political hacks like Obama and Holder tweak definitions to pad numbers in support of a political agenda is no surprise. The fact that people don’t call bullshit on their actions is sadly also not surprising.