Home Non Cigar Related

No rise in mass killings

RainRain Posts: 8,960 ✭✭✭
Crazy, but the artice says mass shootings peaked in the 1920s. It does make sense that with the internet/media, more people hear about these things more quickly.http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html

Comments

  • Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for this. It actually makes me feel better about this situation. That's not sarcasm even though it probably sounds like it.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • raisindotraisindot BostonPosts: 1,311 ✭✭✭
    The frequency depends on the researcher's definition of "mass shootings" How many victims constitutes a mass shooting? Two? Three? Four? The 1920s and early 30s were probably highest because that was the peak era of gang-related, prohibition-era shootings and Bonnie and Clyde style criminals. But I would have to believe that the kinds of seemingly random acts of solo shooters (i.e. not gang or organized crime related, burglarly related, or targeted execution style) must be on the rise over the past couple decades, particularly those resulting in 5 or more deaths.
  • webmostwebmost Dull-AwarePosts: 6,551 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Huh. Never woulda thunk it. Shows how much you just don't know.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


  • Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    The frequency depends on the researcher's definition of "mass shootings" How many victims constitutes a mass shooting? Two? Three? Four? The 1920s and early 30s were probably highest because that was the peak era of gang-related, prohibition-era shootings and Bonnie and Clyde style criminals. But I would have to believe that the kinds of seemingly random acts of solo shooters (i.e. not gang or organized crime related, burglarly related, or targeted execution style) must be on the rise over the past couple decades, particularly those resulting in 5 or more deaths.
    Why would you have to believe that despite data to the contrary? Lots of people thought plane crashes were on the rise a while back because they started getting more media coverage is well. All any of it demonstrates is that human thoughts are strongly controlled by the media, something that far too many politicians and not nearly enough citizens understand and act upon.

    Your argument about gangs and prohibition is deeply flawed. Gang violence is more prevalent now than then (though they wear baggy jeans instead of suits and no one knows what a tommy gun is) and they still participate in plenty of mass shootings. Prohibition of drugs has had no different effect on crime than prohibition of alcohol so essentially prohibition never left the data.

    And aren't these criminals EXACTLY Bonnie and Clyde style? No intention of escape or capture, taking down as many as they can first?
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • raisindotraisindot BostonPosts: 1,311 ✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    raisindot:
    The frequency depends on the researcher's definition of "mass shootings" How many victims constitutes a mass shooting? Two? Three? Four? The 1920s and early 30s were probably highest because that was the peak era of gang-related, prohibition-era shootings and Bonnie and Clyde style criminals. But I would have to believe that the kinds of seemingly random acts of solo shooters (i.e. not gang or organized crime related, burglarly related, or targeted execution style) must be on the rise over the past couple decades, particularly those resulting in 5 or more deaths.
    Why would you have to believe that despite data to the contrary? Lots of people thought plane crashes were on the rise a while back because they started getting more media coverage is well. All any of it demonstrates is that human thoughts are strongly controlled by the media, something that far too many politicians and not nearly enough citizens understand and act upon.

    Your argument about gangs and prohibition is deeply flawed. Gang violence is more prevalent now than then (though they wear baggy jeans instead of suits and no one knows what a tommy gun is) and they still participate in plenty of mass shootings. Prohibition of drugs has had no different effect on crime than prohibition of alcohol so essentially prohibition never left the data.

    And aren't these criminals EXACTLY Bonnie and Clyde style? No intention of escape or capture, taking down as many as they can first?
    Because the original article doesn't state how they define "mass shootings." What constitutes a mass shooting? If gang violence is more prevalent today then how does this substantiate the article's argument that mass shooting have declines? Yes, there's plenty of gang-related shootings, but most of these are generally don't result in more than 2-3 victims--you rarely hear about 10 people getting shot in a gang-related shooting. And, most crime statistics have indicated that murder rates have generally been declining over the past 20 years--due most likely to an aging population, lower birthrates, and the fact that our prisons are overcrowded with prisoners who might be likely to be back on the street shooting more people if they weren't incarcerated. In any case, however most gang-related shootings are purposeful--one gang targets specific members of another gang. They know who they're after, and if anyone else gets killed, that's collateral damage. Same with the gangland slayings in the 20s. Al Capone knew who he was going after on St. Valentine's Day; killing 20 members of an organized crime family isn't the same as going to the top of a tower and randomly sniping people you don't know. That's my criticism of the study that says mass shootings are down. You can't lump them all together. The number of purely random, horrific mass shootings that have dramatically risen in the past two decades are definitely rising, even if the number of 2-3 victim 'targeted' mass gang-related shootings have fallen. Not that any kinds of mass shootings are 'better' or 'acceptable' in any way. And certainly the absolute highest number of gun deaths and injuries are caused by someone shooting someone they know. If so-called researchers want to try to make a claim about something, they need to define their terminology first and then post the statistics that support that claim. From that article, the researcher neither defined their terminology or provided a link to their research. If someone has a link to it, please provide it. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if their data and methodology reflect realistic definitions.
  • Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭
    What are you referring to as the original article?
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • raisindotraisindot BostonPosts: 1,311 ✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    What are you referring to as the original article?
    Uh, see the link in the first message of this topic. Two supposed studies with no links to the research or definitions.
  • webmostwebmost Dull-AwarePosts: 6,551 ✭✭✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    Ken Light:
    What are you referring to as the original article?
    Uh, see the link in the first message of this topic. Two supposed studies with no links to the research or definitions.
    Here's what the article says:
    "Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century."

    Just as the original poster says, it does seem odd.

    What if it's true? There are many stranger things.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


  • Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    Ken Light:
    What are you referring to as the original article?
    Uh, see the link in the first message of this topic. Two supposed studies with no links to the research or definitions.
    That's journalism, not science. I searched for those two researchers and found that they have not recently studied this in published form (though maybe publication is forthcoming, we cannot know), so it seems they were simply consulted to speak to the current findings in the literature due to their considerable expertise in it (they did seem to research it heavily even if they haven't published on it in the past 5 years).

    The next step would've been to search further for the guys doing the current research, but I'll take the expert's opinion on the current state of his own field.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • raisindotraisindot BostonPosts: 1,311 ✭✭✭
    Ken Light:
    raisindot:
    Ken Light:
    What are you referring to as the original article?
    Uh, see the link in the first message of this topic. Two supposed studies with no links to the research or definitions.
    That's journalism, not science. I searched for those two researchers and found that they have not recently studied this in published form (though maybe publication is forthcoming, we cannot know), so it seems they were simply consulted to speak to the current findings in the literature due to their considerable expertise in it (they did seem to research it heavily even if they haven't published on it in the past 5 years).

    The next step would've been to search further for the guys doing the current research, but I'll take the expert's opinion on the current state of his own field.
    I won't, not if he doesn't provide data to back it up. Any more that I would take an 'expert's' contrary opinion on the same topic if s/he didn't have research to cite. Not on a topic as controversial as this one.
  • Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    Ken Light:
    raisindot:
    Ken Light:
    What are you referring to as the original article?
    Uh, see the link in the first message of this topic. Two supposed studies with no links to the research or definitions.
    That's journalism, not science. I searched for those two researchers and found that they have not recently studied this in published form (though maybe publication is forthcoming, we cannot know), so it seems they were simply consulted to speak to the current findings in the literature due to their considerable expertise in it (they did seem to research it heavily even if they haven't published on it in the past 5 years).

    The next step would've been to search further for the guys doing the current research, but I'll take the expert's opinion on the current state of his own field.
    I won't, not if he doesn't provide data to back it up. Any more that I would take an 'expert's' contrary opinion on the same topic if s/he didn't have research to cite. Not on a topic as controversial as this one.
    1) You cannot say he didn't have research to cite.
    2) You're going to eventually have to trust someone's opinion unless you can do the statistical analyses yourself and have access to adequate data.
    3) Let me know what you turn up, I'm curious.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
Sign In or Register to comment.