Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
Blam-Blam-Blam-Blam-Blam-Blam
()
Date: October 21, 2014 07:22AM
It's not a matter of if, but when and where the next mass shooting will happen: It might take place at another shopping mall, or college campus, or suburban office building, and probably not long from now. A new study says the average meantime between mass shootings is now down to 64 days. Yet, as these disturbing incidents keep appearing in the headlines, various commentators have argued that mass shootings are not on the rise.
That may be true if you look at all mass shootings, including gang killings and in-home violence stemming from domestic abuse. But new research from the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrates that mass shootings in public have become far more frequent. The Harvard findings are also corroborated by a separate report issued recently by the FBI.
There has never been a clear, universally accepted definition of "mass shooting." The data we collected includes attacks in public places with four or more victims killed, a baseline established by the FBI a decade ago. We excluded mass murders in private homes related to domestic violence, as well as shootings tied to gang or other criminal activity. (Qualitative consistency is crucial, even though any definition can at times seem arbitrary. For example, by the four-fatalities threshold neither the attack at Ft. Hood in April nor the one in Santa Barbara in May qualifies as a "mass shooting," with three victims killed by gunshots in each incident.) A report from the FBI on gun rampages, issued in late September, includes attacks with fewer than four fatalities but otherwise uses very similar criteria.
The FBI report, which includes 160 "active shooter" cases between 2000 and 2013, notes explicitly that it is not a study of mass shootings. Rather, it analyzes incidents in which shooters are "actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people" in a public place, regardless of the number of casualties. But within the FBI's 160 cases is a subset of 44 mass shootings (in which four or more were murdered) nearly identical to Mother Jones' data set from the same time period. The Harvard researchers underscore that the FBI had access to law enforcement sources that Harvard did not: "That the results of the two studies are so similar reinforces our finding that public mass shootings have increased."
James Alan Fox, a widely quoted researcher from Northeastern University, has argued that mass shootings are not on the rise, and that they are too rare to merit significant policy changes. As he put it recently in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper: "We treasure our personal freedoms in America, and unfortunately, occasional mass shootings, as horrific as they are, is one of the prices that we pay for the freedoms that we enjoy."
But in drawing his conclusions, Fox relies on overly broad data. His study is misguided, the Harvard researchers say, because it conflates public mass shootings with a larger set of mass murders that are "contextually distinct," primarily those in private homes. According to data compiled by USA Today, there have been at least 95 domestic violence-related mass shootings since 2006 alone. These crimes are no less awful (and we've reported on them too). But mass murders in schools and shopping malls are a different monster in terms of impact on public safety and the complicated policy questions they raise—not least how they might be stopped.
In response to the Harvard research, Fox insisted that mass shootings should not be distinguished categorically by their circumstances. "To the victims who are slain, it hardly matters whether they were killed in public or in a private home," he told the Huffington Post. "Nor does it matter if the assailant was a family member or a stranger. They are just as dead."
But the question of whether public mass shootings can be prevented hinges on understanding the complex factors behind them—which starts with tracking these shootings accurately. That, at least, is a role that the federal government is poised to assume: Last year President Obama signed the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act, which authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate mass shootings in public places. Notably, the law defines the threshold for these crimes as three or more people murdered—which means eventually we'll have data showing that the scope of the problem is far greater than we've already seen.
Attachments:
That may be true if you look at all mass shootings, including gang killings and in-home violence stemming from domestic abuse. But new research from the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrates that mass shootings in public have become far more frequent. The Harvard findings are also corroborated by a separate report issued recently by the FBI.
There has never been a clear, universally accepted definition of "mass shooting." The data we collected includes attacks in public places with four or more victims killed, a baseline established by the FBI a decade ago. We excluded mass murders in private homes related to domestic violence, as well as shootings tied to gang or other criminal activity. (Qualitative consistency is crucial, even though any definition can at times seem arbitrary. For example, by the four-fatalities threshold neither the attack at Ft. Hood in April nor the one in Santa Barbara in May qualifies as a "mass shooting," with three victims killed by gunshots in each incident.) A report from the FBI on gun rampages, issued in late September, includes attacks with fewer than four fatalities but otherwise uses very similar criteria.
The FBI report, which includes 160 "active shooter" cases between 2000 and 2013, notes explicitly that it is not a study of mass shootings. Rather, it analyzes incidents in which shooters are "actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people" in a public place, regardless of the number of casualties. But within the FBI's 160 cases is a subset of 44 mass shootings (in which four or more were murdered) nearly identical to Mother Jones' data set from the same time period. The Harvard researchers underscore that the FBI had access to law enforcement sources that Harvard did not: "That the results of the two studies are so similar reinforces our finding that public mass shootings have increased."
James Alan Fox, a widely quoted researcher from Northeastern University, has argued that mass shootings are not on the rise, and that they are too rare to merit significant policy changes. As he put it recently in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper: "We treasure our personal freedoms in America, and unfortunately, occasional mass shootings, as horrific as they are, is one of the prices that we pay for the freedoms that we enjoy."
But in drawing his conclusions, Fox relies on overly broad data. His study is misguided, the Harvard researchers say, because it conflates public mass shootings with a larger set of mass murders that are "contextually distinct," primarily those in private homes. According to data compiled by USA Today, there have been at least 95 domestic violence-related mass shootings since 2006 alone. These crimes are no less awful (and we've reported on them too). But mass murders in schools and shopping malls are a different monster in terms of impact on public safety and the complicated policy questions they raise—not least how they might be stopped.
In response to the Harvard research, Fox insisted that mass shootings should not be distinguished categorically by their circumstances. "To the victims who are slain, it hardly matters whether they were killed in public or in a private home," he told the Huffington Post. "Nor does it matter if the assailant was a family member or a stranger. They are just as dead."
But the question of whether public mass shootings can be prevented hinges on understanding the complex factors behind them—which starts with tracking these shootings accurately. That, at least, is a role that the federal government is poised to assume: Last year President Obama signed the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act, which authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate mass shootings in public places. Notably, the law defines the threshold for these crimes as three or more people murdered—which means eventually we'll have data showing that the scope of the problem is far greater than we've already seen.
Attachments:
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
Hengay
()
Date: October 21, 2014 07:40AM
Nice, some left-wing libtard website.
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
Gungrabber-tardz
()
Date: October 21, 2014 08:20AM
Is there some point to this? We're NOT giving up our 2nd Amendment rights. So you might as well drop it gun grabber.
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
kisses
()
Date: October 21, 2014 08:27AM
LIBTARDS
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
Ralph Pootawn
()
Date: October 21, 2014 08:29AM
Blam-Blam-Blam-Blam-Blam-Blam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not a matter of if, but when and where the
> next mass shooting will happen: It might take
> place at another shopping mall, or college campus,
> or suburban office building, and probably not long
> from now. A new study says the average meantime
> between mass shootings is now down to 64 days.
> Yet, as these disturbing incidents keep appearing
> in the headlines, various commentators have argued
> that mass shootings are not on the rise.
>
> That may be true if you look at all mass
> shootings, including gang killings and in-home
> violence stemming from domestic abuse. But new
> research from the Harvard School of Public Health
> demonstrates that mass shootings in public have
> become far more frequent. The Harvard findings are
> also corroborated by a separate report issued
> recently by the FBI.
>
> There has never been a clear, universally accepted
> definition of "mass shooting." The data we
> collected includes attacks in public places with
> four or more victims killed, a baseline
> established by the FBI a decade ago. We excluded
> mass murders in private homes related to domestic
> violence, as well as shootings tied to gang or
> other criminal activity. (Qualitative consistency
> is crucial, even though any definition can at
> times seem arbitrary. For example, by the
> four-fatalities threshold neither the attack at
> Ft. Hood in April nor the one in Santa Barbara in
> May qualifies as a "mass shooting," with three
> victims killed by gunshots in each incident.) A
> report from the FBI on gun rampages, issued in
> late September, includes attacks with fewer than
> four fatalities but otherwise uses very similar
> criteria.
>
> The FBI report, which includes 160 "active
> shooter" cases between 2000 and 2013, notes
> explicitly that it is not a study of mass
> shootings. Rather, it analyzes incidents in which
> shooters are "actively engaged in killing or
> attempting to kill people" in a public place,
> regardless of the number of casualties. But within
> the FBI's 160 cases is a subset of 44 mass
> shootings (in which four or more were murdered)
> nearly identical to Mother Jones' data set from
> the same time period. The Harvard researchers
> underscore that the FBI had access to law
> enforcement sources that Harvard did not: "That
> the results of the two studies are so similar
> reinforces our finding that public mass shootings
> have increased."
>
> James Alan Fox, a widely quoted researcher from
> Northeastern University, has argued that mass
> shootings are not on the rise, and that they are
> too rare to merit significant policy changes. As
> he put it recently in an interview with CNN's Jake
> Tapper: "We treasure our personal freedoms in
> America, and unfortunately, occasional mass
> shootings, as horrific as they are, is one of the
> prices that we pay for the freedoms that we
> enjoy."
>
> But in drawing his conclusions, Fox relies on
> overly broad data. His study is misguided, the
> Harvard researchers say, because it conflates
> public mass shootings with a larger set of mass
> murders that are "contextually distinct,"
> primarily those in private homes. According to
> data compiled by USA Today, there have been at
> least 95 domestic violence-related mass shootings
> since 2006 alone. These crimes are no less awful
> (and we've reported on them too). But mass murders
> in schools and shopping malls are a different
> monster in terms of impact on public safety and
> the complicated policy questions they raise—not
> least how they might be stopped.
>
> In response to the Harvard research, Fox insisted
> that mass shootings should not be distinguished
> categorically by their circumstances. "To the
> victims who are slain, it hardly matters whether
> they were killed in public or in a private home,"
> he told the Huffington Post. "Nor does it matter
> if the assailant was a family member or a
> stranger. They are just as dead."
>
> But the question of whether public mass shootings
> can be prevented hinges on understanding the
> complex factors behind them—which starts with
> tracking these shootings accurately. That, at
> least, is a role that the federal government is
> poised to assume: Last year President Obama signed
> the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes
> Act, which authorizes the Department of Justice to
> investigate mass shootings in public places.
> Notably, the law defines the threshold for these
> crimes as three or more people murdered—which
> means eventually we'll have data showing that the
> scope of the problem is far greater than we've
> already seen.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not a matter of if, but when and where the
> next mass shooting will happen: It might take
> place at another shopping mall, or college campus,
> or suburban office building, and probably not long
> from now. A new study says the average meantime
> between mass shootings is now down to 64 days.
> Yet, as these disturbing incidents keep appearing
> in the headlines, various commentators have argued
> that mass shootings are not on the rise.
>
> That may be true if you look at all mass
> shootings, including gang killings and in-home
> violence stemming from domestic abuse. But new
> research from the Harvard School of Public Health
> demonstrates that mass shootings in public have
> become far more frequent. The Harvard findings are
> also corroborated by a separate report issued
> recently by the FBI.
>
> There has never been a clear, universally accepted
> definition of "mass shooting." The data we
> collected includes attacks in public places with
> four or more victims killed, a baseline
> established by the FBI a decade ago. We excluded
> mass murders in private homes related to domestic
> violence, as well as shootings tied to gang or
> other criminal activity. (Qualitative consistency
> is crucial, even though any definition can at
> times seem arbitrary. For example, by the
> four-fatalities threshold neither the attack at
> Ft. Hood in April nor the one in Santa Barbara in
> May qualifies as a "mass shooting," with three
> victims killed by gunshots in each incident.) A
> report from the FBI on gun rampages, issued in
> late September, includes attacks with fewer than
> four fatalities but otherwise uses very similar
> criteria.
>
> The FBI report, which includes 160 "active
> shooter" cases between 2000 and 2013, notes
> explicitly that it is not a study of mass
> shootings. Rather, it analyzes incidents in which
> shooters are "actively engaged in killing or
> attempting to kill people" in a public place,
> regardless of the number of casualties. But within
> the FBI's 160 cases is a subset of 44 mass
> shootings (in which four or more were murdered)
> nearly identical to Mother Jones' data set from
> the same time period. The Harvard researchers
> underscore that the FBI had access to law
> enforcement sources that Harvard did not: "That
> the results of the two studies are so similar
> reinforces our finding that public mass shootings
> have increased."
>
> James Alan Fox, a widely quoted researcher from
> Northeastern University, has argued that mass
> shootings are not on the rise, and that they are
> too rare to merit significant policy changes. As
> he put it recently in an interview with CNN's Jake
> Tapper: "We treasure our personal freedoms in
> America, and unfortunately, occasional mass
> shootings, as horrific as they are, is one of the
> prices that we pay for the freedoms that we
> enjoy."
>
> But in drawing his conclusions, Fox relies on
> overly broad data. His study is misguided, the
> Harvard researchers say, because it conflates
> public mass shootings with a larger set of mass
> murders that are "contextually distinct,"
> primarily those in private homes. According to
> data compiled by USA Today, there have been at
> least 95 domestic violence-related mass shootings
> since 2006 alone. These crimes are no less awful
> (and we've reported on them too). But mass murders
> in schools and shopping malls are a different
> monster in terms of impact on public safety and
> the complicated policy questions they raise—not
> least how they might be stopped.
>
> In response to the Harvard research, Fox insisted
> that mass shootings should not be distinguished
> categorically by their circumstances. "To the
> victims who are slain, it hardly matters whether
> they were killed in public or in a private home,"
> he told the Huffington Post. "Nor does it matter
> if the assailant was a family member or a
> stranger. They are just as dead."
>
> But the question of whether public mass shootings
> can be prevented hinges on understanding the
> complex factors behind them—which starts with
> tracking these shootings accurately. That, at
> least, is a role that the federal government is
> poised to assume: Last year President Obama signed
> the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes
> Act, which authorizes the Department of Justice to
> investigate mass shootings in public places.
> Notably, the law defines the threshold for these
> crimes as three or more people murdered—which
> means eventually we'll have data showing that the
> scope of the problem is far greater than we've
> already seen.
Attachments:
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
kisses
()
Date: October 21, 2014 08:35AM
OMG libtard can copy & paste articles from their propaganda libtard sites!
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
johnny ringo
()
Date: October 21, 2014 09:01AM
See, union dominated public education does work after all.
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
jhgefjk
()
Date: October 21, 2014 09:34AM
What that graph shows me:
- People have really become fucked up over the last 10-15 years
- Medicated is the new norm
- Cut and paste has become a standard
- Libturds will blame a butter knife if enough people are killed using one
- People have really become fucked up over the last 10-15 years
- Medicated is the new norm
- Cut and paste has become a standard
- Libturds will blame a butter knife if enough people are killed using one
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
OP = butthurt. We see it.
()
Date: October 21, 2014 10:39AM
Why so faggot bro? U mad?
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
ldc5v
()
Date: October 21, 2014 11:09AM
I've read that the government was behind some of these recent mass shootings like the batman and the elementary school shootings in an effort to grab guns. Its seems possible to me.
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
BehindTheScene
()
Date: October 21, 2014 11:19AM
Interesting they included the Fort Hood Jihadi. It was an act of terrorism.
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
hGLjn
()
Date: October 21, 2014 11:24AM
Gungrabber-tardz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there some point to this? We're NOT giving up
> our 2nd Amendment rights. So you might as well
> drop it gun grabber.
Yeah, I don't care how many American have to die. They're not coming for MY guns. What about MEEE?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there some point to this? We're NOT giving up
> our 2nd Amendment rights. So you might as well
> drop it gun grabber.
Yeah, I don't care how many American have to die. They're not coming for MY guns. What about MEEE?
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
Me First, Fuck Everyone Else
()
Date: October 21, 2014 11:33AM
hGLjn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about MEEE?
The teatard battlecry: "what about me". "The government's not coming for MY money", "he's not MY President", "liberals/illegals/etc. are ruining MY country". Selfish pricks. It's disgusting how little they give a shit about American lives. Unless of course they're unborn, then they deserve all the protection in the world.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about MEEE?
The teatard battlecry: "what about me". "The government's not coming for MY money", "he's not MY President", "liberals/illegals/etc. are ruining MY country". Selfish pricks. It's disgusting how little they give a shit about American lives. Unless of course they're unborn, then they deserve all the protection in the world.
Re: Harvard & FBI Mass Shooting Study - Oh Boy!
Posted by:
Face palm
()
Date: October 21, 2014 11:41AM
Me First, Fuck Everyone Else Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hGLjn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What about MEEE?
>
> The teatard battlecry: "what about me". "The
> government's not coming for MY money", "he's not
> MY President", "liberals/illegals/etc. are ruining
> MY country". Selfish pricks. It's disgusting how
> little they give a shit about American lives.
> Unless of course they're unborn, then they deserve
> all the protection in the world.
Because Browns are a weight on our economy not a help. I love my AR15 and no liberal faggot is taking that away.
-------------------------------------------------------
> hGLjn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What about MEEE?
>
> The teatard battlecry: "what about me". "The
> government's not coming for MY money", "he's not
> MY President", "liberals/illegals/etc. are ruining
> MY country". Selfish pricks. It's disgusting how
> little they give a shit about American lives.
> Unless of course they're unborn, then they deserve
> all the protection in the world.
Because Browns are a weight on our economy not a help. I love my AR15 and no liberal faggot is taking that away.