FBI Active Shooter Incidents Increase

[SteveM4A1]

Here is the whole study:

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

I am still researching the incidents they are using, but their methodology looks ok so far. Of course the media is having a blast with this.

Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI Says - WSJ

FBI: Mass shootings occurring more frequently - CNN.com

 

[T.Lex]

I see a small potential flaw in the definition ("active shooter" to me means that the shooter is still alive and shooting when officers arrive), but agree that the methodology passes the initial "smell test."

First interesting tidbit to jump out at me:

At least 5 shooters from 4 incidents remain at large.

Yikes.

 

[phylodog]

They will continue to rise in frequency because the media gives the shooters what they want, immediate and widespread recognition.

 

[T.Lex]

Do you think that's all there is to it, phyl? (Can I call you phyl, or Mr. dog? Is it an Irish name, Phyl O'Dog?)

I mean, that may be part of it, but a significant majority (IIRC 60%) commit suicide. What's the point of the attention if you won't be around to enjoy it?

I've read other theories that it has more to do with how we handle mental illness. Just looking at Indiana, there are fewer state resources to handle what used to be called "criminally insane." Now, did we always correctly diagnose people that way? Probably not. But, the statistics suggest to me that at least some percentage of people who would have been kept out of society are now out there.

ETA:
Whoa! Just realized there might be a problem with their methodology. Chris Dorner isn't mentioned at all, I don't think. His shooting spree just is not counted.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'll likely not read the entire thing. But based on the snipets I saw in the first few pages:

Though incidents occurred primarily in commerce and educational environments (70.0%), they also occurred on city streets, on military and other government properties, and in private residences, health care facilities, and houses of worship.

They acknowledge GFZ's are where the vast majority of "active shooter" incidents occur.

The findings also reflect the damage that can occur in a matter of minutes. In 64 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.0%) of 64 incidents ended in 5 minutes or less, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less. Even when law enforcement was present or able to respond within minutes, civilians often had to make life and death decisions, and, therefore, should be engaged in training and discussions on decisions they may face.17

This paragraph practically screams the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

[T.Lex]

They acknowledge GFZ's are where the vast majority of "active shooter" incidents occur.

In a graph, it shows ~17% happen in schools with k-12, another 10% on government property, some of which may not be GFZ. Universities may or may not be, also. Would be interesting for someone to use their list and backtrack what the GFZ were.

This paragraph practically screams the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

From the study:

In 5 incidents (3.8%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In a graph, it shows ~17% happen in schools with k-12, another 10% on government property, some of which may not be GFZ. Universities may or may not be, also. Would be interesting for someone to use their list and backtrack what the GFZ were.


From the study:

The 70% number quoted in my original post appeared to apply to commercial and education environments, where I, I think reasonably assumed were K-12, universities, community colleges, nursery schools, places like Simon malls, factories and other businesses that prohibit employees from carrying, etc. (Typically well know GFZs).

I realize and am not surprised there would be such a small number of incidents where there was a good guy available and successful. I was implying that if more good guys were allowed, there is evidence that because of the time frames they mentioned, the good guys might mitigate at least some of the carnage.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh yeah - I'm not arguing. You said you weren't going to read it, so I was just skimming for info related to your points.

In fact, it might be worth arranging some crowd-sourcing to figure out the GFZs among the 160 locations. Just glancing through it, it probably wouldn't require much research even.

ETA:
Also, another 1.2% were resolved by off duty officers and 13% resolved by unarmed civilians. If you count them (off duty LEOs) as armed civilians (since they were off duty), then you get 20% were resolved by essentially civilian or non-dispatched LEO responses. In 56% of the cases, the shooter either committed suicide or voluntarily stopped shooting.

So, in roughly half of the non-suicide/voluntary halt cases, intervention by "normal" people made the difference.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh yeah - I'm not arguing. You said you weren't going to read it, so I was just skimming for info related to your points.

In fact, it might be worth arranging some crowd-sourcing to figure out the GFZs among the 160 locations. Just glancing through it, it probably wouldn't require much research even.

ETA:
Also, another 1.2% were resolved by off duty officers and 13% resolved by unarmed civilians. If you count them as armed civilians (since they were off duty), then you get 20% were resolved by essentially civilian or non-dispatched LEO responses. In 56% of the cases, the shooter either committed suicide or voluntarily stopped shooting.

So, in roughly half of the non-suicide/voluntary halt cases, intervention by "normal" people made the difference.

 

[T.Lex]

You know what, this is really worth a deeper read. Couple more excerpts, not in any particular order:

Recognizing the increased active shooter threat and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold, these study results support the importance of training and exercises— not only for law enforcement but also for citizens. It is important, too, that training and exercises include not only an understanding of the threats faced but also the risks and options available in active shooter incidents.

That come REALLY close to saying citizens should be allowed to engage these threats.

In 64 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.0%) of 64 incidents ended in 5 minutes or less, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less.

That is both a REALLY long time (if you're in a stressful situation like that or waiting for LEO) and a very SHORT amount of time.

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.

That goes to the schools as GFZs issue. Make them GFZ as to students/minors/people under 21, but the rest of us grownups are, statistically, not the problem.

 

[phylodog]

Do you think that's all there is to it, phyl? (Can I call you phyl, or Mr. dog? Is it an Irish name, Phyl O'Dog?)

I mean, that may be part of it, but a significant majority (IIRC 60%) commit suicide. What's the point of the attention if you won't be around to enjoy it?

I've read other theories that it has more to do with how we handle mental illness. Just looking at Indiana, there are fewer state resources to handle what used to be called "criminally insane." Now, did we always correctly diagnose people that way? Probably not. But, the statistics suggest to me that at least some percentage of people who would have been kept out of society are now out there.

ETA:
Whoa! Just realized there might be a problem with their methodology. Chris Dorner isn't mentioned at all, I don't think. His shooting spree just is not counted.

I believe it's the largest motivator. They aren't doing it for the quality of life they'll enjoy when it's over, they know they aren't walking away from these situations. Many, if not most, don't know their victims so it isn't personal. I think mental Ilioness plays a huge role in it, but the people who do these things know that their name will be spoken by millions of people and the names of the victims will not.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, quick stab at GFZ count.

A quick word about my own methodology on this - I'm leaving businesses out of it, except for malls. A "business" generally IMHO has a property right to tell its workers not to bring guns on the property. That might fit someone's definition of GFZ, and I wouldn't argue, but for these purposes, I'm going to focus on forced GFZs. That's why I'm including malls. Simon says all its malls are GFZs, and individual retailers don't have a choice. I also didn't include universities because I just don't know how many of them might be GFZs. The Indiana universities aren't strictly GFZs (as I recall), but I sorta recall that Virginia Tech was a GFZ. Someone might want to research those.

- malls = 6
- schools (non-university) = 27
- .mil and .gov places = 11 (I count these because you have to have special permission to have weapons on you, as I understand it)

So, about 28% were roughly in GFZs. Maybe as much as 40%.

 

[prescut]

I love looking at stats that agree with me. I hate looking at stats that disagree with my position. I think most folks are like that. I don't think I have ever changed a strong principle because someone showed me stats. Changing someone's principles is tough stuff. I think the gun control debate is a lot like this. We keep singing to the choir and we need to sing the the folks outside the church. Stats just might not be the answer to our needs.

Lost

 

[SteveM4A1]

I love looking at stats that agree with me. I hate looking at stats that disagree with my position. I think most folks are like that. I don't think I have ever changed a strong principle because someone showed me stats. Changing someone's principles is tough stuff. I think the gun control debate is a lot like this. We keep singing to the choir and we need to sing the the folks outside the church. Stats just might not be the answer to our needs.

Lost

It is called cognitive dissonance

 

[rob63]

I love looking at stats that agree with me. I hate looking at stats that disagree with my position. I think most folks are like that. I don't think I have ever changed a strong principle because someone showed me stats. Changing someone's principles is tough stuff. I think the gun control debate is a lot like this. We keep singing to the choir and we need to sing the the folks outside the church. Stats just might not be the answer to our needs.

Lost

There is a bunch of research that indicates we are not nearly as rationale as we like to believe we are. We seldom research an issue and then form an opinion. We normally form opinions first, based on experience and intuition, and then we search for data that supports our position. It's just the way we are wired. This is not to say we can never change anyone's position on something, but you have to use information that fits with their intuition.

 

[Alamo]

Some pushback on the "rising" part: The FBI Says 'Active Shooter Incidents' Are On the Rise. What Does That Mean? - Hit & Run : Reason.com