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/201...-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.
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):
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.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.
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
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Robinson
