Roseburg, Oregon School Shooting

[Pio1980]

Victims include those with permanent life changing injuries.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I noticed the conspicuous absence of your source.

That puts me at a disadvantage were I want to come up with a brilliant retort such as "Mother Pucking Jones"

SOURCE Data compiled from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program by James Alan Fox, criminology professor at Northeastern University; U.S. Census Bureau; Journal Sentinel research Emily Yount AND Ben Poston

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by JBS...

SOURCE Data compiled from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program by James Alan Fox, criminology professor at Northeastern University; U.S. Census Bureau; Journal Sentinel research Emily Yount AND Ben Poston

How about a link Skippy?

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Mother Jones data, my graph.

I could have graphed 'total victims,' MJ gives those numbers. I chose to go with fatalities because it's unambiguous. 'Victims' could include anything from 'permanently on life support' to 'broke a fingernail.'

The FBI defines an incident as mass murder if a shooter kills four or more people in a single incident (not including the shooter), and typically in a single location.

Pretty straight forward unlike MJ's twisted effort.

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

How about a link Skippy?

No problem Gilligan

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dat...165757356.html


Notice the name of site

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by JBS...

It's true, numbers are numbers. But, what were MJ's numbers? what were the parameters and criteria for inclusion in its mass shootings stats and was applied consistently through out the study?

criteria
The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, both of which involved two shooters.)

The shootings happened during a single incident and in a public place. (Public, except in the case of a party in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle.) Crimes primarily related to armed robbery or gang activity are not included.

The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer-as opposed to a spree killer or a serial killer-if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), and typically in a single location.

If the shooter died or was hurt from injuries sustained during the incident, he is included in the total victim count. (But we have excluded cases in which there were three fatalities and the shooter also died, per the previous criterion.)

We included six so-called "spree killings"-prominent cases that fit closely with our above criteria for mass murder, but in which the killings occurred in multiple locations over a short period of time.


"some" samples of what was left out based on MJ's criteria.

Browns Chicken robbery/massacre of seven victims that occurred 1993

Massacre of 14 relatives and two others by R. Gene Simmons of Russellville, Ark. in 1987.

Other massive shootings, like the execution-style slaughter of 13 in a Seattle club in 1983
...


Unlike the MJ's approach the figure below displays the number of mass shootings -- incidents and victims -- from 1976 through 2011. These reflect all mass shootings in which at least four victims were killed that had been reported to the FBI by local law enforcement authorities as part of the routine collection of crime statistics




Do you see a trend upward or downward in these numbers Don?

They look pretty random to me.

If you look a little more, the trend is up, even with your 'looser' dataset. 2006-2008 is the highest average over any 3 consecutive years. The last period shown, 2001-2010, is the only ten-year period shown in which the yearly total never drops to 50 or less. The average per year from 2001-2010 is about* 97.5, significantly higher than 76.1 (1975 to 1984), and 82.7 (1985 to 1994). There's variation, but there's a definite trend.




*I'm reading yearly data off the graph, so I may be a little inexact.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by JBS...

No problem Gilligan

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dat...165757356.html


Notice the name of site

Dan Bice?

Never heard of him.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

If you look a little more, the trend is up, even with your 'looser' dataset. 2006-2008 is the highest average over any 3 consecutive years. The last period shown, 2001-2010, is the only ten-year period shown in which the yearly total never drops to 50 or less. The average per year from 2001-2010 is about* 97.5, significantly higher than 76.1 (1975 to 1984), and 82.7 (1985 to 1994). There's variation, but there's a definite trend.




*I'm reading yearly data off the graph, so I may be a little inexact.

We could run a regression line on it. I'd use number of victims rather than incidents.

Just from looking at the chart I'm pretty sure it would show an upward trend in number of victims.

[donquixote99]

It also might be interesting to smooth the line out with moving averages. But there's no question the trend is up.

[Pio1980]

Regardless, what makes it tolerable?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk