Mass Shootings and Data-Free Zones

[RevolverRob]

This thread has the potential to be highly inflammatory - If you have thin skin and/or strongly held opinions - you may want to not participate in this thread.

I have said around here a few times, how one of the things that bothers me, fundamentally, about both anti and pro-gun arguments is the lack of quantifiable data. We know such data should exist, but the vast majority of the time it doesn't. Well here is an interesting report on Mass Shootings from 2000-2013 funded by the FBI and conducted by researchers at Texas State University.

A word on Texas State - It is part of the Texas State University System - the third largest university system in the state of Texas, behind the University of Texas System, and the Texas A&M System. Classically, Texas State has done excellent science in its biology, agriculture, and physical sciences programs. They are not world-renowned, but they focus on high quality research, usually on a limited budget. Although, it does of course have a bit of a liberal slant, I've seen some of the least biased political science research come from this institution. So, selecting researchers to do this work for the FBI is probably as close to non-partisan political research as can be done.

Here is a link to the report: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

I wanted to cull out some key points for this report that underscore why I think rhetoric should be toned down and a focus on actual data should be done. You may not like my interpretations of the following points.

3948

The above figure is found on page 13 of the report. It's important to note that if we combine classic "gun-free zones" (educational institutions, houses of worship, government and health care facilities) only 40.7% of the shootings occurred in these places. Now, while that number is very significant, it does not support the narrative that shooters deliberately choose gun-free zones to carry out their attacks. Nor does the following quote taken from the conclusions (Page 20):


Though this study did not focus on the motivation of the shooters, the study did identify some shooter characteristics. In all but 2 of the incidents, the shooter chose to act alone. Only 6 female shooters were identified. Shooter ages as a whole showed no pattern. However, some patterns were seen in incident sub-groups. For example, 12 of 14 shooters in high school shootings were students at the schools, and 5 of the 6 shooters at middle schools were students at the schools.

In addition, research results identified some location categories where victim targets were more readily identifiable, in part because of the shooters’ connections to the locations. For example, in businesses generally closed to pedestrian traffic, 22 of the 23 shooters were employees or former employees of the involved company. In other instances, the location category appeared less significant than the victims targeted. For example, in 15 (9.3%)
of the 160 incidents, the shooter targeted family members. And in 15 (9.3%) of the 160 incidents, the shooter targeted his current, estranged, or former spouse or his current or former girlfriend.

If we look at both of these instances, there is little to support that less gun control OR more gun control would have prevented these shootings. In fact, the most logical conclusion is that we are failing to either assess, provide, or support individuals with mental health and personal issues. This is far more likely to be the cause of these issues. I suspect these are frequently the locations were people feel most marginalized in their lives. To me this indicates a far more serious problem with society, culture, and mental health than it does a gun problem.

This is precisely why I support these studies. Data do not lie, in this particular instance the bulk of those targeted in these shootings were known by the shooter, not chosen at random, and no laws support or not support armament would have likely prevented these shootings from occurring. The only argument that could be made is that intervention by people with guns ended the shootings sooner. The data exists in this report to determine that, but it is not assessed. I will conduct the analysis in the near future and report back.

So, here we go, why data is important.

-Rob

[Mr_White]

Data sucks!

There, just trying to get the butthurt out of the way.

;)

Looking forward to people's thoughts. Good thread idea, Rob.

[JHC]

Some of the high profile shootings in commercial areas were "gun free" also like the Colorado theater shooting.

So suppose that 40% gun free is actually 45%. Or leave it at 40.

Since the internal workings of the shooters' minds are not very well understood entirely - it seems that one cannot draw the following conclusion "it does not support the narrative that shooters deliberately choose gun-free zones to carry out their attacks." I don't see those figures really undermining the narrative that gun free zones make attractive venues for mass killings.

100% of those 40 or 45% might be exactly because of the gun free zone temptation and only a portion of the rest.

I'll hit the link to see if they layer in the number of casualties for different venues and the amount of armament taken to different venues to see if there are any patterns to that also.

[41magfan]

*******************

[Robinson]

To me, the point isn't whether criminals seek out gun-free zones but rather that if there are armed citizens in a given location then there is a higher likelihood that the shooter will be stopped earlier. Elimination of gun-free zones may or may not reduce the number of mass shootings, but armed citizens in a given location would almost certainly reduce the body count.

[ranger]

I would just add my observation that a very significant portion of the "Commerce" slice is "gun free" so I would say that way more than 50% of the shootings are in gun free zones. It would be interesting to do a survey of the members of this forum and see how many can carry at work without fear of termination or other dire consequences. In my case, I worked for the US military and was not allowed to carry at work or anywhere on DOD property. I have worked and now work large civilian employers and I would be instantly terminated for carrying. Of course someone will point out that "concealed is concealed" but I choose my career and job over the chance of termination.

[Rains on Parades]

I think that by and large shooters choose places that have meaning to them. The school they go to, the work place they were fired from, the religious institution they blame for something, the government official that "wronged" them. Secondly I think they choose by what they think will have the highest psychological impact i.e., "If I kill a bunch of people here people will really pay attention to me now."

[RevolverRob]

To me, the point isn't whether criminals seek out gun-free zones but rather that if there are armed citizens in a given location then there is a higher likelihood that the shooter will be stopped earlier. Elimination of gun-free zones may or may not reduce the number of mass shootings, but armed citizens in a given location would almost certainly reduce the body count.

That is precisely what I will seek to investigate. As I stated, the report should have adequate data within it to address this question. Unfortunately, the total elapsed time for a shooting event is not contained in the report. But the number of victims is. I will investigate the correlation of the number of victims vs. the mode of incapacitation of the shooter.

Null: There should be no statistical difference between the number of victims killed/wounded and mode of incapacitation of the shooter.
Alternative: There will be a significant statistical difference between the number of victims killed/wounded and the shooter being incapacitated by bystanders. With a reduced number of victims when bystanders/potential victims intervene.
Alternative 2: There will be a significant statistical difference between number of victims killed/wounded when the shooter was incapacitated by being shot by a police officer/civilian/etc.

To give you some numbers from the report: 21 shootings total were interrupted/ended by intervening individuals. Only 6 of those 21 involved shooting the mass-shooter. To make comparisons fair, I will randomly draw from shootings where the shooter committed suicide 21 shootings and then compare. This isn't an entirely fair comparison, because of the factors of different environments. So, if it appears that a pattern is being driven by the environment, I will to randomly draw shootings with a distribution of the different environments matching the distribution of environments where the 21 interrupted shootings occur. To give you guys some other perspectives, I will run simulations of these events and determine if any of the patterns are statistically different than random. I will run the statistical simulations in R and I will provide a detailed analysis of them soon.

In the interest of professional and full discretion. I may choose to hold off publicly posting these data if they turn out to be particularly interesting and submit the results to a peer-reviewed, open-access, journal. At which point, I will make the results and data available to everyone.

-Rob

[JM Campbell]

First beer is on me Rob.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[JAD]

I don't think the argument should be phrased as "more gun availability would reduce incidents or negative outcomes of 'mass shootings.'"

For me, there is an argument from the first person -- "I have the right to have the tools available to protect me and mine" -- that is enhanced by the existence of these sort of incidents, and that argument is independent of whether less firearm availability would reduce the number or negative outcomes of incidents.

[RevolverRob]

I don't think the argument should be phrased as "more gun availability would reduce incidents or negative outcomes of 'mass shootings.'"

For me, there is an argument from the first person -- "I have the right to have the tools available to protect me and mine" -- that is enhanced by the existence of these sort of incidents, and that argument is independent of whether less firearm availability would reduce the number or negative outcomes of incidents.

I am completely in agreement with you. Personal defense is a fundamental right. More than ever we need to utilize that point as the key to any pro-gun narrative. The rhetoric is at an all time high and none of it is productive, in my opinion. For me, data may not tell the whole truth, but they tell more of the truth than the NRA or the Brady Campaign. If we can point to solid evidence, we can escape a vicious rhetorical feedback loop. Of course the caveat is that such approaches will still be heavily politicized. I am not so naive to think that data will render zealots on either side silent. However, good data could help sell reasonable middle-grounders to one side or the other. They are as tired of the rhetorical arguments as anyone.

Besides, why conjecture about these things, when we can investigate them?

-Rob

[JAD]

I think a lot of postings on this forum tend to be a little nihilistic* -- 'the cletii will ruin everything for us,' 'we will lose our rights because the public is irrevocably stupid,' usw. I therefore am very hesitant to give this response, but I really do think that good data never matters in public discourse. Our society is ruled by emotion, and we have only been able to make so many advances in the past twenty years because the NRA's fearmongering is more effective than Brady's. While your approach seems noble, if you're trying to provide a course correction I think you need to do a better job of making the case that the way we're doing it isn't working.

*we believe in nussink, Lebowski.

[RevolverRob]

I think a lot of postings on this forum tend to be a little nihilistic* -- 'the cletii will ruin everything for us,' 'we will lose our rights because the public is irrevocably stupid,' usw. I therefore am very hesitant to give this response, but I really do think that good data never matters in public discourse. Our society is ruled by emotion, and we have only been able to make so many advances in the past twenty years because the NRA's fearmongering is more effective than Brady's. While your approach seems noble, if you're trying to provide a course correction I think you need to do a better job of making the case that the way we're doing it isn't working.

*we believe in nussink, Lebowski.

We have fundamentally different views. I don't believe rhetoric or emotion should rule, but cold hard logic should. Yes, I recognize that emotion rules the American political rhetoric. But it doesn't rule a whole group of middle-grounders who actually prefer data. I'm serious, here I work with middle-grounders every day and they would really like data in place of lobbyist rhetoric. And I'm not doing this particularly to change the rhetoric of either side. As I said, I don't think it will make a difference to the yellers of the crowd. Instead I am doing it, because hypothesis-driven investigation is superior to anecdotal spit balling, period. If those data provide a place for the conversation to change, so be it.

Everyone should recognize that while I am a gun owner and pro-2A - I am working to be unbiased in this investigation. The results will speak for themselves.

-Rob

[Alpha Sierra]

I don't think the argument should be phrased as "more gun availability would reduce incidents or negative outcomes of 'mass shootings.'"

For me, there is an argument from the first person -- "I have the right to have the tools available to protect me and mine" -- that is enhanced by the existence of these sort of incidents, and that argument is independent of whether less firearm availability would reduce the number or negative outcomes of incidents.

[/thread]

I don't give a rat's behind about anyone's statistics when it's my life on the line. Period. Full stop.

[JAD]

[/thread]
.

I hope not, or that's not what I intended.

[Drang]

...It's important to note that if we combine classic "gun-free zones" (educational institutions, houses of worship, government and health care facilities) only 40.7% of the shootings occurred in these places. Now, while that number is very significant, it does not support the narrative that shooters deliberately choose gun-free zones to carry out their attacks. ...
As noted elsewhere, the percentage of "gun free zones" is higher than that made up by "educational institutions, houses of worship, government and health care facilities", since many businesses will be posted, and in all too many cases in jurisdictions where the gun free zone starts at the city, county, or state line.

OTOH, not all educational institutions, houses of worship, or even government facilities are GFZs. I know a couple of guys who, as students at University of Washington, secured permission to carry on campus, and public libraries are also self-defense zones in WA.

Not saying the figures lie, but they might be misleading unless you do a lot more digging. I think the key take-away is actually in the penultimate paragraph:

Data do not lie, in this particular instance the bulk of those targeted in these shootings were known by the shooter, not chosen at random...

[Alpha Sierra]

I hope not, or that's not what I intended.

I do. I am 100% against any use of statistics or any other manipulable data to discuss/justify/indict my inalienable rights.

Those rights reside in a higher plane and are just not negotiable.

[45dotACP]

I look forward to the results Rob. In a class I took about interpretation of clinical research for nurses, I've found that most research on both sides of the gun control issue is likely not valid.

I'd listen to data from a source such as the FBI, but reading studies published by the Brady campaign and then paraded across MSNBC, then watching Fox counter with John Lott's 20 year old study....well it grows tiresome.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[JAD]

We have fundamentally different views. I don't believe rhetoric or emotion should rule, but cold hard logic should. Yes, I recognize that emotion rules the American political rhetoric.
-- I think that love should rule, but I think that love is supported by reason, so we're not actually that far apart.



But it doesn't rule a whole group of middle-grounders who actually prefer data.

If you think that's true, than rock on. I'm not sure, but as long as you clam the fuck up if the data doesn't work our way, it seems worth exploring.

[JAD]

I do. I am 100% against any use of statistics or any other manipulable data to discuss/justify/indict my inalienable rights.

Those rights reside in a higher plane and are just not negotiable.

The exercise of any of our rights is restricted to the extent that it creates no serious harm to others (supposing that you buy into freedom for excellence over freedom of indifference, which is probably asking too much). If Rob's data were to prove that the exercise of that right causes serious harm, it would be reasonable to restrict that right to some degree. It would only remain to be determined whether the restriction was more worser than the harm caused by the absence of restriction. Sadly, that's where being rational in a vacuum gets really hard -- it's very difficult to compare relative harm when they aren't the same kinds of harm.

But you're very right that the obverse isn't true. We don't have to prove, at all, that our rights produce good. They're good all by themselves.

[Hambo]

Bertrand Russell said, "Most people would sooner die than think."

While I would really like to live in a world where people make rational decisions, few people do so. As an example, I leased a new truck earlier this year. The manufacturer emailed a survey which I answered. There were a few questions about quality, features, etc, but what struck me were the straight out questions about emotion. How important is your car to your image? To me, not at all, but they wouldn't ask if there weren't a whole lot of people who worry more about how they look than crash safety ratings.

In political arguments actual facts have no importance to either side (fact check what candidates are saying if you don't believe me). Hence I'm with JAD: what you're doing is interesting, but I really hope you hit delete if the facts don't support the cause. As Alpha Sierra says, we are guaranteed certain rights which we do not have to justify.

[scw2]

The exercise of any of our rights is restricted to the extent that it creates no serious harm to others (supposing that you buy into freedom for excellence over freedom of indifference, which is probably asking too much). If Rob's data were to prove that the exercise of that right causes serious harm, it would be reasonable to restrict that right to some degree. It would only remain to be determined whether the restriction was more worser than the harm caused by the absence of restriction. Sadly, that's where being rational in a vacuum gets really hard -- it's very difficult to compare relative harm when they aren't the same kinds of harm.

But you're very right that the obverse isn't true. We don't have to prove, at all, that our rights produce good. They're good all by themselves.

I think I tend to be more pessimistic and agree with you that most of the people are for or against gun control based more on emotion than reason. I also would be willing to restricted if it were net-net beneficial. However, I also wish other areas of larger/greater harm would also be tackled first (e.g. car traffic deaths). To think that the voting public would be that rational or reasonable is..... irrational.

[RevolverRob]

I think I tend to be more pessimistic and agree with you that most of the people are for or against gun control based more on emotion than reason. I also would be willing to restricted if it were net-net beneficial. However, I also wish other areas of larger/greater harm would also be tackled first (e.g. car traffic deaths). To think that the voting public would be that rational or reasonable is..... irrational.

While not the subject of this thread, and a whole 'nother can of worms. I think car traffic deaths are being dealt with. The NHTSA has spent billions of our dollars investigating making vehicles safer. A 2015 Ford Taurus is considerably safer than its 1995 counterpart and orders of magnitude safer than its 1965 Ford Fairlane counterpart. Side-impact airbags, side-beam crash protection, roll over-protection, front airbags, airbags in seats, force absorbing impact zones. And as a result, traffic deaths are decreasing every year. Automated cars will probably see these deaths drop to an all time low. Some time in the future our grandkids will wonder about the days when people dying in car crashes wasn't a rare occurrence, but a regular one.

The thing about this - The major developments in this field have been driven almost exclusively by data. However, there was a time where rhetoric ruled the discussion (see: the introduction and Federal mandating of safety belts being installed in cars). Once it became obvious that the data supported increasing safety efforts, it became a logical discussion, not an emotional one. One can argue that laws mandating the wearing of safety belts or the production of certain safety features is restricting free rights. I agree at some level. I also recognize that you can choose to buy a 1955 Chevy and drive around in it, if you would like. Sans seatbelts, airbags, or crumple zones. That is your decision and you're free to make it.

___

Regarding releasing the data. While I respect that folks here want to see data in favor of their viewpoint and would rather see data that don't support their point swept under the rug. I am ethically, morally, and professionally bound to present the results as they come, and support my interpretations with published literature, be they negative or positive. If you wish to rebut them, you may. But I refuse to compromise or fail to publish or make freely available data that may be relevant to the discussion at hand. This is my professional responsibility as a researcher and I do not take it lightly. If I compromised my integrity, because the results did not meet my political expectations, I would be no different than a lying politician. I deal in facts and evidence. Again I will do my very best to present an unbiased interpretation of these data as they become available.

I recognize there are some who think this is a negative road to go down. I respect that opinion, but disagree with you. Hence, the warning at the beginning of this thread.

-Rob

[JAD]

Yeah, ok, I'm tracking now. That's pretty douchey.

[Hambo]

The argument will be won or lost by lying politicians and lobbyists, not academics, at least not honest academics.

[ubervic]

Almost totally absent in today's debate is questioning how to address the root cause of this repetitive destruction of innocent life.

In my mind, THE most prominent issue of concern surrounding modern mass killings in the U.S. is not the tool or device that is used to inflict harm, nor is it the environment of assault or the nature of the harmed. Instead, it is the mental/emotional defect that drives the assailant to initiate such mayhem, and our society's lack of effective, proactive identification and treatment of same such that we may dilute/diffuse their destructive tendencies.

More or fewer firearms? This debate may be beside the point while our society avoids addressing mental health issues full-on. Let us be more concerned about how to change our attitudes and approaches towards those who are severely mentally ill such that they are effectively treated and, therefore, far less likely to initiate mass assaults in the first place.

[Software Guy]

Almost totally absent in today's debate is questioning how to address the root cause of this repetitive destruction of innocent life.

In my mind, THE most prominent issue of concern surrounding modern mass killings in the U.S. is not the tool or device that is used to inflict harm, nor is it the environment of assault or the nature of the harmed. Instead, it is the mental/emotional defect that drives the assailant to initiate such mayhem, and our society's lack of effective, proactive identification and treatment of same such that we may dilute/diffuse their destructive tendencies.

More or fewer firearms? This debate may be beside the point while our society avoids addressing mental health issues full-on. Let us be more concerned about how to change our attitudes and approaches towards those who are severely mentally ill such that they are effectively treated and, therefore, far less likely to initiate mass assaults in the first place.

I had this discussion at our local gun club the other night before this last incident. Not one person argued. We are at a point where all of the freaking laws in the land will not help because there is an underlying cause that nobody wants to treat.

Background checks (which I do support as a gun owner) have failed numerous times because the reporting has failed, and honestly can you blame a family doc for not reporting that someone had an off day at the office? It's up to the people that interact with said shooter every damn day that play the important part. Many of which have said "yeah, not right in the head" or something like that.

We as a society simply fail to protect each other on a human level.

[JHC]

Seeing how GFZ are still a small % of the total places where people gather, I am not tracking with a preliminary conclusion that 40-50% mass shootings occurring in GFZs undermine the narrative.

[fixer]

First off I hope to make a meaningful contribution to this discussion. Everything I write here is intended to further the discussion and not 'troll' or 'flame' someone. I agree with the spirit of this thread.

Secondly I am with Alpha Sierra on this one: my inalienable rights are flat out, 100%, not subject to permission or analysis by or from statistics. They were not derived that way and will not be abridged that way. I know that such is not the spirit of this thread--my message is to those who seek to use statistical analysis techniques to determine the needfulness of rights.

I hope we as a mature gun community can offer a substantial contribution to root cause of mass shootings. Here are my thoughts on this...and yes, first off, I will come out and say I think the issue is 100% software, not hardware.

For the sake of argument, my premise is that mass shootings do in fact occur more in the US and also are increasing in frequency.

If you disagree with this then don't read on and offer some meaningful illustration of how this is a false premise. I would love to know that some other post-industrial revolution nation has the same problem the US does.

Guns have never been more restricted in access than they are now. I mean the ability to purchase.
Recently, guns have been carried by more folks, than ever before. This is the surge of CHL. (I'm open to be proven wrong about this)
The crime rate from populations of CHL and law enforcement has been, historically, extremely and reliably low. (people around guns all the time and use them or administratively handle them)
In rough proportion to population growth, there are more law enforcement professionals in existence than ever.

So if guns are more restricted in access, yet more mass shootings are occurring, it isn't the hardware. It isn't the purchasing process.

If more folks are carrying; if there are more law enforcement professionals; yet mass shootings are increasing, the issue is related to the population of people not CHL and LEO.

I submit this last point infers there is a mental issue at play. Folks opting for a CHL are going out of their way to open themselves to scrutiny in order to carry a firearm. LEO is obvious one of the highest stress jobs in existence and we trust them implicitly with firearms. Both sets of people must have a high pedigree in their ability to process and cope with a stressful situation. Note I am not equating the ability...just the aspect of sound mind.

So folks with a sound mind commit less crime and are not highly represented in mass shootings. Hardly a surprising conclusion.

It seems prima facie that the overwhelming number of people perpetrating these mass shootings are people possessing or harboring some grievance.

So are there more grievance-bound people today than in decades past? I will submit that yes there are. In fact I think the rise of mass shootings are a symptom of this.

So why?

What are some recent changes, inventions, or innovations that have taken shape in the past few decades?

We went from the invention of the internet to its ubiquity. We also have asymptotic increase in drug innovations.

The following is how I think these two confounded variables combine to create the mindset of a mass shooter.

We have steadily increased consumption of pharmaceuticals:

See table 4.3:

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6160e/6.html#Js6160e.6

Not all of the drugs are bad or have bad side effects. However the increased number of pharmaceuticals has increased the chances of drug side effects and even more so the possibility of drug interactions. These side effects and interactions can affect the mind in unknown ways in many individuals.

The internet is a cesspool. The internet for many people is an alternate reality where they can trot around their carefully constructed archetype. They have complete exclusion of people not like them; they can pretend to be like people they admire; they can construct a totally false reality. The internet is reality for some folks.

When this façade breaks it creates a severe psychological hole. A grievance is born. It can be anything: race, sex orientation, not getting sex, perceived sleights by colleagues, etc...the list is long.

Combine the over-use of the internet for acceptance, reality, social interactions and increasing complexity in pharmaceutical interactions, and increased pharmaceutical consumptions we have a powder keg with a lit fuse.

Countermeasures

So do we now ban the internet? restrict its use? Ban all pharmaceuticals made in the last 20 years?

Nope...then I'd be like the anti-gunners.

We need the internet. We need drug innovations.

We need to get a hold of ourselves and find some meaning in life beyond the computer screen. Perhaps we ask for more research into the mental side effects of new drugs before they are FDA certified?

I don't and won't pretend to have a full grasp on the countermeasures other than to say definitively--it ain't the fuckin guns.

[JHC]

Almost totally absent in today's debate is questioning how to address the root cause of this repetitive destruction of innocent life.

In my mind, THE most prominent issue of concern surrounding modern mass killings in the U.S. is not the tool or device that is used to inflict harm, nor is it the environment of assault or the nature of the harmed. Instead, it is the mental/emotional defect that drives the assailant to initiate such mayhem, and our society's lack of effective, proactive identification and treatment of same such that we may dilute/diffuse their destructive tendencies.

More or fewer firearms? This debate may be beside the point while our society avoids addressing mental health issues full-on. Let us be more concerned about how to change our attitudes and approaches towards those who are severely mentally ill such that they are effectively treated and, therefore, far less likely to initiate mass assaults in the first place.

+1 but I think we've had a shooter or two that don't register with up on the radar profound mental illness too. We have this pent up failure rage lying latent in a LOT of young men. A witch's brew of a reeling culture, broken families and shattered psyches has I think spawned thousands of these candidates. IMO it's too big to fix. A new abnormal if you will.

[GardoneVT]

There's two sides to this.

The problem-IMO, so no fancy graphs- is an emotional bias to society in general. Facts themselves are irrelevant if they don't fit nicely into preconceived emotional boxes. This "decision" making process goes beyond just gun control. Data in general which leads to uncomfortable conclusions is simply rejected.

With regard to the inner city, data which suggests government policies and poor incentives create gangs and turmoil is simply rejected for the "Whiteys Guns Cause This" explanation. It feels better then admitting 40 years of government is wrong, so that's what we collectively stick with.
So it goes for gun control. It's not about data. It's about humans being willing to face the uncomfortable fact that all of us are capable of horrible and savage acts. That message doesnt feel warm and fuzzy . Gun control laws and SuperDuper Background Checks do. So that's the message folks will either buy into or reject.

Insofar as the Second Amendment and other civil rights go, it comes back to the Warm and Fuzzy metric. If the civil right feels warm and fuzzy, it'll be respected by society. If its not, it won't be. Today enough people find AR15s and Glocks to be socially acceptable tools.In ten years, who knows?

[RevolverRob]

Why Data Matters: This evening I conducted the tests (in lieu of working on my PhD Dissertation). I collected the distribution of 21 shootings where someone intervened/restrained/shot/otherwise incapacitated the mass shooter. I then, using a random number generator, selected 21 shootings where the mass shooter was not interrupted until police arrived or they committed suicide.

The average number of killed in Intervention Shootings is: 1.29
The average number of wounded in Intervention Shootings is: 2.33

The average number killed without intervention is: 5.29
The average number of wounded without intervention is: 4.76

__

I first performed a Shapiro-Wilk Test to determine if the two distributions (N=21) were normally distribution. Both distributions failed the Shapiro-Wilk Test (p=0.001), indicating neither were normally distributed. This rules out a whole cross-section of statistical tests. Now I had to switch gears and use statistical tests that are appropriate for non-normally distributed data. I settled on the Kruskal-Wallis Test using two-samples. I compared Killed and Killed and Wounded and Wounded to address my hypotheses above.

H0 (Killed) - Is that there is no statistical difference between the two distributions and there is equal probability from non-intervention and intervention shooting events -

Results: H0 is REJECTED at the 95% confidence interval. The two distributions are statistically distinct from one another. P-value = 0.0206

H0 (Wounded) - Is that there is no statistical difference between the two distributions and there is equal probability from non-intervention and intervention shooting events

Results: H0 is NOT REJECTED at the 95% confidence interval. It is not clear that the distributions are statistically distinct from one another. P-value = 0.0701

Discussion: The lack of rejection of H0 wounded, is not a negative. It is distinctly possible that part of the reason the distributions are not distinct from one another is that in instances of non-intervention shootings the shooter was able to kill more people and wound less. It might also be the opposite that intervention shootings, the shooter was intervened with, before killing more people, but wounded more as a result. It is worth noting that the low P-value of H0(Wounded) is close to statistically significant and would fit in a 90% confidence interval. While it doesn't allow the rejection of the null, it also does not heavily support the null that these two distributions are the same. The rejection of H0 killed is perhaps more interesting. It means that the two means 1.29 vs. 5.29 killed is statistically significantly different from random. This supports the idea that intervening with an active shooter, reduces the number of overall casualties.

The overall conclusion is that intervening with mass shooters results in fewer deaths and potentially in fewer wounded people.It does not appear to matter the mode of intervention. There are not enough samples of interventions by armed bystanders to draw strong conclusions. There are three interventions where the shooter was shot included in the data of this study. The average killed in those shootings was 1.33 people and the average wounded was 2. However, this is not a sample-size anywhere near sufficient to draw any conclusions. My conclusion is that intervention reduces casualties overall in these types of incidents.

-Rob

[GardoneVT]

Here's the problem Rob,and please don't take offense at this.

The people in decision making roles have a elected mob to appease, and they don't give a tinkers damn about confidence intervals behind policy initiatives. The only stats they care about are in a folder marked "Voter Preferences and Election Outcomes."

[RevolverRob]

Here's the problem Rob,and please don't take offense at this.

The people in decision making roles have a elected mob to appease, and they don't give a tinkers damn about confidence intervals behind policy initiatives. The only stats they care about are in a folder marked "Voter Preferences and Election Outcomes."

That's not the point.

Now you have statistical data that strongly suggests that fighting back against active shooters reduces the number killed and possibly wounded in such events. Next time you are having a conversation and someone says, "Well I just don't know if having people armed would improve such events." - You can point at real data, fighting back reduces casualties. Logically arming those fighting back would reduce casualties as well. I, unfortunately, don't have the data to test that hypothesis for sure, yet. But now you've got this.

Is it for politicians? No. It's not. It's for mobilizing people to your side of the argument, without having to make an impassioned plea to their emotions.

-Rob

[fixer]

Rob--good stuff. thanks for your work on this. The 'wounded' analysis makes sense to me.

[GardoneVT]

Is it for politicians? No. It's not. It's for mobilizing people to your side of the argument, without having to make an impassioned plea to their emotions.

-Rob

Perhaps people are different where you live,but in my neck of the woods Homo Sapiens merrily ignores any facts they dislike. The more outside their worldview your facts are, the harder they reject them.

[RevolverRob]

After thinking about the analyses a bit more. I decided I would try one more approach. I combined killed + wounded for intervention/non-intervention shootings. This = total number of victims during mass shooting.

The average for intervented shootings is: 3.62 victims.
The average for non-intervented shootings is: 10.05 victims.

Again using the Kruskal-Wallis test I tried to determine if the mean and median of these distributions was random. Suggesting that no pattern is supported. The null hypothesis was REJECTED in this case (p = 0.0099) - Which is within both the 95% confidence interval and the 99% confidence interval. The conclusion here is straight forward, the number of victims in shootings where someone attempted to and/or successfully stopped the shooter was significantly reduced. In this case if we look at the averages, on average nearly 6.5 fewer people are killed when they fight back.

Given this conclusion, it seems reasonable to suggest that Fighting Back is absolutely the right choice. Given the potential for handguns to equal the fighting playing field between victims and shooter, it is reasonable to suggest that armed victims are more likely to end a mass shooting event, faster, with fewer overall victims. Although, the data do not yet exist to test that particular hypothesis. None-the-less in places where victims are not empowered to fight back, the body count is essentially three-times as high as when they do.

Edited to Add: For those wondering the Median of the total victims for intervention shootings is 3 and the Median for non-intervention is 6 victims. Whether you focus on mean or Median, the number of victims is significantly reduced for intervented shooters.

-Rob

[warpedcamshaft]

Revolver Rob...
I like you...
that is all.

[45dotACP]

After thinking about the analyses a bit more. I decided I would try one more approach. I combined killed + wounded for intervention/non-intervention shootings. This = total number of victims during mass shooting.

The average for intervented shootings is: 3.62 victims.
The average for non-intervented shootings is: 10.05 victims.

Again using the Kruskal-Wallis test I tried to determine if the mean and median of these distributions was random. Suggesting that no pattern is supported. The null hypothesis was REJECTED in this case (p = 0.0099) - Which is within both the 95% confidence interval and the 99% confidence interval. The conclusion here is straight forward, the number of victims in shootings where someone attempted to and/or successfully stopped the shooter was significantly reduced. In this case if we look at the averages, on average nearly 6.5 fewer people are killed when they fight back.

Given this conclusion, it seems reasonable to suggest that Fighting Back is absolutely the right choice. Given the potential for handguns to equal the fighting playing field between victims and shooter, it is reasonable to suggest that armed victims are more likely to end a mass shooting event, faster, with fewer overall victims. Although, the data do not yet exist to test that particular hypothesis. None-the-less in places where victims are not empowered to fight back, the body count is essentially three-times as high as when they do.

Edited to Add: For those wondering the Median of the total victims for intervention shootings is 3 and the Median for non-intervention is 6 victims. Whether you focus on mean or Median, the number of victims is significantly reduced for intervented shooters.

-Rob

AWESOME!

[Gray222]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/34003376.jpg

[Wheeler]

Almost totally absent in today's debate is questioning how to address the root cause of this repetitive destruction of innocent life.

In my mind, THE most prominent issue of concern surrounding modern mass killings in the U.S. is not the tool or device that is used to inflict harm, nor is it the environment of assault or the nature of the harmed. Instead, it is the mental/emotional defect that drives the assailant to initiate such mayhem, and our society's lack of effective, proactive identification and treatment of same such that we may dilute/diffuse their destructive tendencies.

More or fewer firearms? This debate may be beside the point while our society avoids addressing mental health issues full-on. Let us be more concerned about how to change our attitudes and approaches towards those who are severely mentally ill such that they are effectively treated and, therefore, far less likely to initiate mass assaults in the first place.


The idea that we as a society need to treat a growing mental problem as the answer is, in my opinion short sighted. What we, as a society are dealing with are the results of a lack of morality. The idea that there are some things that we just don't do served as an excellent deterrent for centuries.

[Drang]

Again using the Kruskal-Wallis test I tried to determine if the mean and median of these distributions was random. Suggesting that no pattern is supported. The null hypothesis was REJECTED in this case (p = 0.0099) - Which is within both the 95% confidence interval and the 99% confidence interval.
MEGO...
You took the real statistics class, didn't you? I took the one offered by the Sociology Department so Criminal Justice majors' GPAs wouldn't tank...

[Alpha Sierra]

Regarding releasing the data. While I respect that folks here want to see data in favor of their viewpoint and would rather see data that don't support their point swept under the rug. I am ethically, morally, and professionally bound to present the results as they come, and support my interpretations with published literature, be they negative or positive. If you wish to rebut them, you may. But I refuse to compromise or fail to publish or make freely available data that may be relevant to the discussion at hand. This is my professional responsibility as a researcher and I do not take it lightly. If I compromised my integrity, because the results did not meet my political expectations, I would be no different than a lying politician. I deal in facts and evidence. Again I will do my very best to present an unbiased interpretation of these data as they become available.

Who asked you to engage in this "crusade"?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's a great crusade. We do have the responsibility to analyze situations correctly, rather than spout cliches. If some data are negative to a gun rights position, you must report it - if the analysis was done fairly.

Having a good analysis of 'fighting' and presenting that in discussions puts the anti group on the defensive in a public debate. Sure, demagogues of the left or right will spout scientific nonsense but some folks do listen to facts.

I respect what Rob has done.

If Kleck and Lott had discovered that guns led to more crime using their same methods - then the gun world would be describing them in vile terms. But facts are facts. I felt a touch of that with my AWB paper where some gun world denizens thought the data was an antigun plot - and I was in league with Mas Ayoob to do some evil. Crazies are everywhere.

[Alpha Sierra]

If Kleck and Lott had discovered that guns led to more crime using their same methods - then the gun world would be describing them in vile terms. But facts are facts.

You know which fact trumps yours and every other number cruncher's facts? The fact that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The fact that judges have invented tests of societal benefit/government interests out of thin fucking air to infringe on our rights just makes them traitors to the Constitution.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Glad you feel that way. Not to engage in another constitutional argument but many 'rights' have limits. Freedom of the press - three cheers for open access to child pornography. Religion - three cheers for human sacrifice.

If an amendment to the Constitution undid the 2nd Amendment and banned guns - would you be the traitor if you kept yours?

The Constitution was a social construct that seemed to benefit the society that wrote it. It was not a law of physics. Based on natural rights or from God?

Say that to the slaves and women who couldn't vote. If women wanted to vote - they were traitors? Miscegenation - made legal by the courts, overturning racist laws. Read the debate of Congress where it was proposed to make interracial marriage unconstitutional on the federal level as Northern states allowed it. The opponents said they were talking the will of God.

If we want to maintain gun rights - rants aren't useful as compared to logical arguments if you want support beyond the choir.

[Tiffany Johnson]

Thanks, Glenn.

[Joe in PNG]

Glad you feel that way. Not to engage in another constitutional argument but many 'rights' have limits. Freedom of the press - three cheers for open access to child pornography. Religion - three cheers for human sacrifice.

If an amendment to the Constitution undid the 2nd Amendment and banned guns - would you be the traitor if you kept yours?

The Constitution was a social construct that seemed to benefit the society that wrote it. It was not a law of physics. Based on natural rights or from God?

Say that to the slaves and women who couldn't vote. If women wanted to vote - they were traitors? Miscegenation - made legal by the courts, overturning racist laws. Read the debate of Congress where it was proposed to make interracial marriage unconstitutional on the federal level as Northern states allowed it. The opponents said they were talking the will of God.

If we want to maintain gun rights - rants aren't useful as compared to logical arguments if you want support beyond the choir.

Remember that drinking alcohol was also Constitutionally forbidden at one point, and then that amendment was repealed just 13 years later.
If the 2A is demonized enough, if enough people see gun rights as a positive evil, and they get enough states to vote for a repeal- goodbye rights.

[LOKNLOD]

Asking to be ruled by the data is still asking to be ruled.

I'm sure that a peer-reviewed statistical study would tell me that I'll be safer and healthier if I take public transportation everywhere I go, only eat food approved by the FLOTUS commission on dietary health, and participate in a rigid gov't-run healthcare regime.

F--- that.

[GardoneVT]

Remember that drinking alcohol was also Constitutionally forbidden at one point, and then that amendment was repealed just 13 years later.
If the 2A is demonized enough, if enough people see gun rights as a positive evil, and they get enough states to vote for a repeal- goodbye rights.

It won't get to that point.

Amending the Constitution is unnecessary when the undesirable civil right in question- 2nd Amendment or otherwise-can merely be ignored. See Mexico for a practical example.

[Joe in PNG]

It won't get to that point.

Amending the Constitution is unnecessary when the undesirable civil right in question- 2nd Amendment or otherwise-can merely be ignored. See Mexico for a practical example.

Amending is unlikely, but not impossible.

[Kukuforguns]

You know which fact trumps yours and every other number cruncher's facts? The fact that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The fact that judges have invented tests of societal benefit/government interests out of thin fucking air to infringe on our rights just makes them traitors to the Constitution.
I think you are inferring something that doesn't exist. I doubt RevolverBob would advocate for the abolition of the 2d A if his research indicated intervention worsened outcomes. As long as the 2d A is part of the Constitution, then you do have a right to keep and bear arms. But research has the potential to highlight ways to reduce the risk firearms pose. The thing is, we don't and cannot know how research can help us until after we do the research. Knowledge is good. How we use knowledge is an entirely different ball of wax.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Drang]

Also... Consider the fact that the Other Side pretty much runs on appeals to emotion; their citations of facts amount to lies or the "fact" that "Bad things happen." Study after study that doesn't rely on skewed or made up data keeps supporting the idea that law-abiding citizens who are armed are not a significant threat to themselves or to other law-abiding citizens.

Alpha Sierra is correct that one's right to defense of self and others would not go away if the Second Amendment were to go away. But...

What happens in Formerly Great Britain if one fights back?

This is just a little more than a week old: Teen decks bully who punched blind student — then is suspended | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/teen-decks-bully-who-punched-blind-student-then-is-suspended/)

We can argue that Heinlein disposed of the "Violence Never Solved Anything" argument decades ago, but our misguided fellow citizens elected President a man who seems to feel that that attitude is a solid basis for Foreign Policy. (Sometimes. Depending on the foreigners involved.)

[GardoneVT]

I think you are inferring something that doesn't exist. I doubt RevolverBob would advocate for the abolition of the 2d A if his research indicated intervention worsened outcomes. As long as the 2d A is part of the Constitution, then you do have a right to keep and bear arms. But research has the potential to highlight ways to reduce the risk firearms pose. The thing is, we don't and cannot know how research can help us until after we do the research. Knowledge is good. How we use knowledge is an entirely different ball of wax.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

An argument could be made they'd want to keep the 2nd Amendment on the books.Its easier to sell the low-info constituency if plausible deniability exists.

"What? Ban guns?! Heavens NO! We believe in the 2nd Amendment. That's why the only guns permitted for civilian ownership will be a Remington 700 and a GP100 4" "

[Alpha Sierra]

If the 2A is demonized enough, if enough people see gun rights as a positive evil, and they get enough states to vote for a repeal- goodbye rights.

That's probably a powder keg that those who know better ought not light

[oldtexan]

....Regarding releasing the data. While I respect that folks here want to see data in favor of their viewpoint and would rather see data that don't support their point swept under the rug. I am ethically, morally, and professionally bound to present the results as they come, and support my interpretations with published literature, be they negative or positive. If you wish to rebut them, you may. But I refuse to compromise or fail to publish or make freely available data that may be relevant to the discussion at hand. This is my professional responsibility as a researcher and I do not take it lightly. If I compromised my integrity, because the results did not meet my political expectations, I would be no different than a lying politician. I deal in facts and evidence. Again I will do my very best to present an unbiased interpretation of these data as they become available.

I recognize there are some who think this is a negative road to go down. I respect that opinion, but disagree with you. Hence, the warning at the beginning of this thread.

-Rob

Rob, thanks for doing this, and drive on. I want to see the results of your analysis no matter where they lead.

[WobblyPossum]

I agree with oldtexan. I would love to see more hard data added to this discussion. Right now each one of these events leads to a lot of emotional rhetoric and the occasional poorly thought out law. I would love to be able to provide some data and be able to say "this is what actually happens." I support this effort regardless of what the data will show at the end


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hambo]

I still think that Rob is over-estimating the number of people who care about facts. As an example of the thought process of the other side, I was looking for stories on the Oregon shooting and watched part of CBS world news. They interview three people: the Milwaukee County sheriff (cool guy), a woman who runs a suicide prevention center (interesting ideas), and an African-American pastor from NYC. The pastor said something on the order of "the president should do whatever it takes to stop this". I don't think he realizes how dangerous this sentiment is, but a lot of people would agree with him. No facts needed, just do "whatever it takes."

[GardoneVT]

I agree with oldtexan. I would love to see more hard data added to this discussion. Right now each one of these events leads to a lot of emotional rhetoric and the occasional poorly thought out law. I would love to be able to provide some data and be able to say "this is what actually happens." I support this effort regardless of what the data will show at the end


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Data is subject to interpretation.

Raise your hans if you have ever worked in agencies or organizations where the available data all said "THIS IS A SH**TY PLAN" , and management said full speed ahead anyways?

I know I have. Data alone won't get the job done.

[MDS]

Just getting caught up and this thread caught my eye. Awesome work, Rob, thank you!

I'm disappointed that there were so many comments about not publishing data if they don't agree with existing beliefs. Why don't we just burn the anti-gun heretics, while we're at it?

[LOKNLOD]

. Why don't we just burn the anti-gun heretics, while we're at it?


If we could get them all to stand close enough... Kidding. :p


Honestly, despite my earlier comment, I think what Rob is doing is interesting. I'm curious to see the results.

I'll freely admit I'm more interested in data that supports the same agenda as me than data that doesn't agree. If the outcome says that we're all better off doing Aussie turn-ins, does anybody intend to go "oh, well I guess this has all been for naught, lets abandon this 'rights' business and get down to crushin' guns"? (Hyperbole, i know...)

Data is just data and must be processed and interpreted but given that data is consistently misinterpreted once it's "in the wild"... I just hope to not be charged with braiding the rope I'm hanged with, so to speak...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When I was teaching Intro Psych and Stat and Res. Design - I stressed rational decision making, understanding human inference errors, how to understand data, etc. I also used crackpot examples of the left and right.

One discussion started with why some people don't believe in evolution and why some thing the old AWB stopped crime. At all ends of the political spectrum, zealots are immune to evidence.

But we have to present what we have fairly and honestly. A lot of times the process is self-correcting as even folks on one side of an argument will come out for honesty in data presentation.

Cases in point (and I am too lazy to get links):

Bellesides' book on gun ownership in early American times was praised and won prizes. Pro gun and not gun friendly scholars took it apart as fake and he was disgraced, fired, and prize removed.

Recent scandal on whether a face to face conversation would change views on gay marriage. Pro gay scholars tried to replicate and found out it was fake. A major retraction and destruction of a career.

Recent sociologist's book on her time with gang members - taken apart in the academic press.

The giant replication project found many results not reproducible. Started after the great social psychology disaster in Holland.

If a 'right' is destructive, even if you 'like' that right, the facts are the facts (yes, they can be misreported - that's why we replicate).

Everyone should have the right to vote - so you can vote in Hamas! (Putin comment).

[Whirlwind06]

I don't know if ths fits into this thread but I thought this was interesting, looking to find and help these people before they go off. And yes I know some will chalk this up as more "midnight basketball", but at least this is better a track then the general push to pass yet another ineffective gun law.


He wasn't looking to assign blame and categorize people into victims and perpetrators, but rather to document the genesis of violence in communities, and to document how it spreads. When he started to analyze the patterns of violence, he found two extraordinary things. One, it was predictable. Two, violence behaved like a contagion, spreading from person to person just like the flu.

If he is right, it could mean a sea change not just in gun violence, but violence of all types. As in much of medicine, we spend too much time and energy treating the symptoms, as opposed to the root cause of a problem.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gupta-stopping-violence/

[Kukuforguns]

I still think that Rob is over-estimating the number of people who care about facts. As an example of the thought process of the other side, I was looking for stories on the Oregon shooting and watched part of CBS world news. They interview three people: the Milwaukee County sheriff (cool guy), a woman who runs a suicide prevention center (interesting ideas), and an African-American pastor from NYC. The pastor said something on the order of "the president should do whatever it takes to stop this". I don't think he realizes how dangerous this sentiment is, but a lot of people would agree with him. No facts needed, just do "whatever it takes."
Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, is traditionally divided into three different methods: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos depends on the quality of the presenter. We are more likely to believe a psychologist's opinion about mental illness than the opinion of a short order cook. Pathos is an appeal to emotion. There's a reason the pro-regulation crowd waits for mass shootings - emotionally the iron is hot. Logos is a presentation based upon logic. Presenting facts. Rhetoric is most effective when it combines all three elements. The gun regulators understand this ... as do the more sophisticated pro-rights groups. This is why the regulators always attack the presenter by saying his/her views have been rebutted or by saying that the presenter took gun money and is therefore not impartial ... they are undermining the ethos of the presenter. It's why the regulators are using the fact that more children are killed with guns every year than police officers. It's an attempt at logos (which is the when we point out pools kill even more children). Pro-rights groups try to delay responding to regulators' attacks ("now is not the right time to talk about these are issues") in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy because it is when emotions are most in favor of the regulators.

With all that being said, the pro-rights side is currently winning the debate. Polls over the last few years show a consistent what ft towards the pro-rights side.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[GardoneVT]

With all that being said, the pro-rights side is currently winning the debate. Polls over the last few years show a consistent what ft towards the pro-rights side.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Don't order the Victory Cake just yet.

It's my observation that gun ownership and opposition thereof are concentrated in regions. In Middle-Western America, people like their guns and vote accordingly. In larger cities and most of the East Coast by land area, the antis run the show .

Between the rural expanses and concentrated cities, we are at a deadlock in terms of elected majority. There's enough rural gun owners offsetting the city folk to keep the confiscation squad at bay for now. In twenty years or less when the White Man -the predominant demorgaphic who own guns- becomes a numeric minority, well ...the words 'Game Over' sum it up.
Look at the number of young women at anti gun events and colleges compared to gun ranges.

[WDH]

http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

I don't have a comment on this article yet, but thought I'd pass it along seeing as how there's some overlap with the discussion here. It's from The Nation, so trigger warnings and all that.

[uechibear]

http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

I don't have a comment on this article yet, but thought I'd pass it along seeing as how there's some overlap with the discussion here. It's from The Nation, so trigger warnings and all that.

I don't know anything about The Nation, so I don't understand your comment, but I'd agree the article adds to this discussion. It's fairly long, and I found it interesting, including these short snippets:


...The gun lobby and some conservative politicians have seized on a “study” by Davi Barker, a conservative blogger, which purports to show that when a “good guy with a gun” is present during a mass shooting, an average of 2.5 people die, but in similar situations where nobody is armed, there are an average of 18 deaths...

...But Barker later admitted that his methodology entailed analyzing “10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere.… I honestly don’t even remember where.”...

... (The gun lobby’s side of the scholarly debate rests largely on the discredited and allegedly fraudulent work of economist John Lott.)...

Within that last sentence, "discredited" is linked to a scienceblogs.com article that I don't find particularly discrediting, and "allegedly fraudulent" is linked to a salon.com article that didn't do much for me either. At this point, I'll continue to consider John Lott an authority who people have attacked for political reasons.

[BaiHu]

First off, great thread.

Second, nice work RevolverRob.

Third, I appreciate RR's work, but I understand AS's sentiment about not taking our rights away.

However, the data is what we need to combat the ignorance, so why not tally up the data. To be honest, I don't know how anyone could logically think that Rob would find the data against us.

The problem is simple, you cannot legislate 'evil' out of mankind. We've tried to control people by various means over the millennia and we've failed. Eye for an eye? Nope, didn't stop everyone. Chop the arm off a thief? Nope, didn't stop everyone. Execute for rape/murder? Nope, didn't stop everyone.

There's a trend that the anti's can't wrap their heads around and quite honestly it's b/c they are puppets for those that simply want to control all mankind for the sake of power/money. This is precisely why the 2A exists. Anyway, here are my thoughts I'd like to see in research regarding mass shootings that were stopped by the 'victim pool' or bystanders, not LE:

1) How much time elapsed from the first person recognizing there was a shooter/attack beginning the rampage and someone doing something about it?
2) How many people did it take to turn the tables when the attack was stopped by the 'victim pool'?
3) What/when did the individual/s do to turn the tables? Was a force multiplier involved of any kind? What kind? Chair, table, books, tackle, gun, knife?
4) What roll if any did LE have in wrapping the situation up? Meaning, did the actions of the intended victims simply buy time for LE or did they essentially finish the job so LE could come clean up the pieces?

[RevolverRob]

1) How much time elapsed from the first person recognizing there was a shooter/attack beginning the rampage and someone doing something about it?
2) How many people did it take to turn the tables when the attack was stopped by the 'victim pool'?
3) What/when did the individual/s do to turn the tables? Was a force multiplier involved of any kind? What kind? Chair, table, books, tackle, gun, knife?
4) What roll if any did LE have in wrapping the situation up? Meaning, did the actions of the intended victims simply buy time for LE or did they essentially finish the job so LE could come clean up the pieces?

Great questions.

1) I would love to have data on this, at present there appears to only be a limited amount available.
2) The FBI report provides some detail on this. I can look into it later, but if I am recalling correctly it was between 1 and 3 who often go after the attacker.
3) This is a great question. The FBI report only details a few instances where they describe tools used by the victims to turn the tables. It appears they are often unarmed and simply go tackle the attacker. The instances were a handgun was deployed (detailed in an earlier post) don't tell us a whole lot about timing and deployment of the weapon. This is, often, I think case dependent. However, it would be good to gather more data on it.
4) Great question. In many instances the victims subdued and restrained the shooter and police were able to arrest the attacker. In some instances, resistance by victims resulted in the attacker committing suicide. In a number of instances where victims did not fight back the attacker did not commit suicide until they appear to have run out of potential victims or police arrived on scene. - I can get hard numbers on these later.

__

Many here have stated, more eloquently than I am able, why statistics and data are important. I am in full agreement that our Constitutional Rights should not be infringed. But I also recognize that unbiased studies of actual data are exceedingly rare and given that there already exists a debate about this topic - it is important to look at these data with a critical eye, regardless of what they tell us.

-Rob

[TCinVA]

1) How much time elapsed from the first person recognizing there was a shooter/attack beginning the rampage and someone doing something about it?


This is an interesting question...and I'm willing to bet that if we could get the answer to that time question you'll likely be able to express body count as a function of how long it took for armed resistance (wherever it came from) to materialize.



2) How many people did it take to turn the tables when the attack was stopped by the 'victim pool'?


I believe you will find 1 person in most instances.

Incidentally Tom Givens has crunched some numbers on this topic as well with interesting results.

[BaiHu]

I think these are the questions that need to be answered in order for citizens to be better prepared. Understanding the odds as well as having some TTPs would go a long way to selling the "go time" philosophy to gun and non-gun owning folks.