Mass Public Shootings Are Getting Deadlier, Experts Say
With the slaughter of 26 people at a Texas church on Sunday, two of the deadliest mass shootings in American history have taken place in the span of just over a month — and experts said these types of cases have gotten deadlier in recent years.
“If we look at say the top seven in terms of how deadly they’ve been, five of the seven deadliest have been in the last ten years,” said Grant Duwe, a noted criminologist who is the author of "Mass Murder in the United States: A History."
Duwe, who is also the research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, said that while the rate of mass public shootings has not really increased in the past few decades, these cases have recently gotten more severe — both in terms of the number of victims and in total number of victims shot.
The five incidents on the list of the ten deadliest mass public shootings include last month’s shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas (58 victims), the 2016 nightclub shooting in Orlando (49 victims), the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting (32 victims), the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, (27 victims), Sunday’s church shooting in Sutherland Springs (26 victims).
Duwe said his research revealed a grim statistic: “With 94 victims killed so far this year, 2017 has been the deadliest year for mass public shootings in American history,” he said.
That research defines “mass public shooting” as four or more victims killed with a firearm in a 24-hour period in a public location that is absent or other criminal activity, such as gang violence or a robbery. Duwe said his research details such incidents spanning back to the year 1900.
Related: Air Force Failed to Report Church Gunman's Convictions
The FBI has defined “mass murder” as the killing of four or more people within one event, according to a Congressional Research Service report .
“It’s difficult to deny the fact that there has been an increase in the severity of mass public shootings with the incident that occurred yesterday [Sunday],” Duwe added.
What statistics show, according to experts
The United States also has more mass public shootings than anywhere in the world, according to criminology professor Adam Lankford, who wrote a recent study on mass shooters and firearms spanning 171 countries.
Lankford said his statistical analysis looked at a variety of factors, including mental health, firearm ownership rates, homicide rates, suicide rates.
“It’s a mathematical model that decides what’s important and in this case it was far and away the firearm ownership rate which explained why some countries had more mass shooters than others,” he said.
Related: Texas Church Shooter May Have Been Targeting His Mother-in-Law
The study concluded that the “United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.”
Lankford said it was “pretty disturbing” that two of the nation’s deadliest shootings had happened within the last 35 days and while motivations varied in mass public shootings, research and evidence left behind by gunmen in previous cases showed "these shooters do influence each other."
“I guess what a lot of average citizens would wonder is, are they connected? Is this an aberration that we’ve had these two shootings in such short proximity of each other or not?” he said.
Lankford noted examples where gunmen had left manifestos writing that they had been influenced by previous mass shooters. For example, more than 30 subsequent shooters cited the landmark 1999 Columbine high school shooters as a source of inspiration, he said.
"So the concern is each one of these individuals who commit such a deadly attack could be a role model for future attackers and of course that can explain why things could get worse in terms of America," he said. "America has more potentially deadly role models than it did two days ago."
Sherry Towers, a research professor at Arizona State University who has also studied the spread of contagious disease in populations, published a study on “contagion in mass killings and school killings” after she noticed reports of three school shootings in a the-day period in 2014.
Using a statistical model, the study found "significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past."
"The way it manifests itself is usually a clustering together in time more than you’d expect by mere random chance," Towers said.
Towers' study also found that higher gun ownership and availability of firearms in a state was a factor.
Related: If Trump’s Blaming Mental Health, Why Did He Gut This Obama Gun-Check Rule?
She agreed with Duwe that, while data did not show a significant upward trend in the frequency mass public shootings from year to year, "there is a significant trend upward in casualty count."
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have once again renewed their call for gun control following the church shooting, which was the largest mass shooting in Texas history.
President Donald Trump said Sunday’s church shooting was not “a guns situation” but instead "a mental health problem." But both Lankford and Towers said their work did not show mental health to be a significant factor in their studies, however firearm ownership was.
The National Rifle Association did not immediately respond to request for comment on the Texas church shooting and the increase in severity of deadly mass public shootings.
Lack of research
Duwe cautioned that “the evidence currently is not there” on whether certain gun control measures would significantly reduce the risk of such violence.
Part of the problem surrounding the issue of mass public shootings and policy was that “there’s been so little rigorous research that’s been done on the topic that you could look at it from a number of different angles," he noted.
Duwe said research was needed on a variety of subjects related to gun violence for it to “potentially be possible at some point to develop some kind of strategies that might reduce this type of violence.”
Towers said there was a lack research on the issue from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because of an amendment Congress first added to a spending bill in 1996 that said "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." The amendment was widely supported by the NRA.
Related: More Than Two Dozen Killed in Rural Texas Church Shooting
While the language did not specifically prohibit research on gun violence, Congress also redistributed $2.6 million of the CDC's budget — the exact amount which had been invested in previous firearm injury research — to focus on prevention of traumatic brain injury.
Towers said the move has had a chilling effect on CDC research on the subject.
Gun violence is the least-researched cause of death, according to a study published this year.
CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard said in a statement that beginning in fiscal year 1997, the "CDC has been subject to appropriations language that states that none of the funds made available to CDC may be used to 'advocate or promote gun control.'"
Lenard added that this language was extended to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies in fiscal year 2012.
But "[t]he language does not prohibit CDC from conducting research or collecting public health data on firearm violence," she said.
"Firearm-related injuries are among the five leading causes of death for people ages 1-64 in the United States," she added. "CDC has and continues to support data collection activities and analyses to document the public health burden of firearm injuries in the U.S."
Following the 2016 mass shooting in Orlando, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy calling gun violence in the U.S. a "public health crisis." The AMA also said it resolved to actively lobby Congress to "to overturn legislation that for 20 years has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from researching gun violence."
Towers said that the result of the provision was that "the studies that are coming out are relying on private sector funding or scientists putting in the time by themselves."
She added that this meant that while the U.S. had the highest prevalence of mass shootings and other gun violence compared to other developed countries, "basically we are not publicly funding any kind of research that goes into that."
View videos at:
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Just speculation, but could this have to do with the media coverage - every detail (for the most part) is made public, in the minds of those that feel the need to kill - these vermin are 'famous' (?)
Hmm so the mental state is not a factor, but gun ownership is, I see so does this research shoot down the need for a mental health data base for Universal Background checks?
I do not think these evil bastards all have mental health problems - but they do have a mentality and desire to kill problem ... the weapon of choice is merely a means to an end - sadly guns usually are the first choice.
I see a "desire to kill" as a mental problem.
I know a lot of sane people none ever express a true "desire to kill" anyone.
Jokingly... yeah. true intention.. naa
Insanity has NO boundaries. Sane people seem to have a hard time understanding insanity. Understandably so.
No argument from me.. def not firing on all cylinders - Many plan things out down to the last detail .. premeditating their every move. Is that a mental issue? Probably is, but actually going through with the massacre ... wow that is pure evil to me.
I do not believe the Vegas shooter intended to die - he had a plan, a security guard messed up his timing .. the Colorado theatre murderer planned everything as well, but I think he scared the hell out of himself with the knowledge that he was able to go through with it, thus making him batshit crazee after the fact.
There are so many factors involved that I think you are correct, it is hard to understand insanity (may I add) as well as identify it - insanity comes in many shapes and sizes...
LOL, I guess I'm a bit older then most of you...I'm a graduate of ''Reform School'', today they call it Juvie Center.
You were there 24/7 no going home for dinner or to your safe little bedroom.
I left there with a PhD. (pretty hard delinquent). Ha, how many of your had a PhD at 17...
Back in the day if you were in trouble at times this would happen.
In my last appearance before a judge for yet another problem (I never started the trouble) the judge gave me two choices...Son he said, this time I'm giving you a choice, you can go to Stillwater (state prison) or you can join the military. Standing there with my brain trying to decide which choice to take. We had a couple of guys in the neighborhood that did hard time at Stillwater. Hmmmmm as my brain was still trying to decide the judge said, officer take this boy down to the enlistment office, I don't care what branch, get him out of here. The next thing that I knew I was at the Army recruiting office. The cop that took me down there, made the decision for me. YOU ARE GOING IN THE ARMY, period he said. Next thing that I knew ''your in the Army now''....LOL
Very very happy that the judge and officer made that decision for me, it changed my life for the better. Too bad hard ass kids don't have a decision like that made for them. 6 years U.S. Army and I came out a hell of a lot better man than the punk/thug that went in.
Thanks judge/officer/Army for giving me a 10th chance.
After I was discharged I did look them up and thanked them for the life saving chance that they gave me. It was a small town so it was easy to find them.
You right it would never happen today.
Actually I did do it in full uniform with a CIB, Jump wings etc. I went to the judges house and knocked on the door, not knowing what to expect. What I found was a human that recognized me (amazing) and we talked for some time. I wasn't aware that he had ''helped'' many kids that were headed for a short life.
I found the officer at the police station and again was in full uniform. I introduced myself and the look on his face was priceless. He said something to the affect, ''damn I knew you'd make it''...
Good memories 9mm, hope there are more out there that were given the chance I was and had the opportunity to meet two really great people that really cared about kids that most had given up on.
Just read where he was admitted into a Mental Health facility after beating his wife and child. He escaped and was later arrested at a bus stop. He had, also, threatened lives of personnel on Base. Thereafter, is when he received his discharge from the Air Force. The Air Force admits its failure to enter his name into the federal data base.
He was mentally ill and fell through the cracks, so to speak.
Knowing something about this which I will not go into personal details, it is extremely difficult to do anything as a family member. You see it unfolding, you seek help and reach a stone wall. It is different with a physical problem. Call 911, medics come out and away you go to the hospital. Not with mental illness. There is a universal stigma with mental illness. Even if one is on meds and properly functioning it remains a stigma.
We are not talking about misbehaving and needing a wake up call. We are talking about mental illness.
i don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but none of these mass shooters belonged to the NRA.
As details come out we can see that this was clearly a man who was demon possessed. I believe we will see even more demonic manifestations like this in these last days. "Solis told Univision Noticias the gunman appeared to be targeting the children. "It was like he had a hatred for the children," she said. Ramirez, who began weeping, agreed. Image: Devin Kelley in an undated driver's license photo Devin Kelley in an undated driver's license photo. Texas Department of Public Safety "He had a hatred for children," he said. "When they yelled he would riddle them (with bullets) like an animal"
If only his doctors had prescribed an exorcism then this tragedy could have been avoided.
Exorcism is a Catholic term. But a born again spirit filled Christ can cast out demons. So a doctor who is not a spirit filled Christian could do nothing about demonic possession.
Lol I didn't say the doctor should conduct it, I said prescribe. The prescription would of course be filled by someone qualified to do so, thus freeing the murderer of his demons enabling him to become a normal, happy, productive member of society.
understood
There is no reason, other than to kill people, for guns capable of firing more than two rounds in quick succession.
So you are against self defense? The primary purpose of our arms is self defense, against criminals and against potential government tyranny. You would effectively disarm Americans
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."�--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Liberal Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959
The only civilians who need more than two rounds are mass murderers.
Thankfully the Constitution, the Founders and the Supreme Court disagree with you
From District of Columbia v Heller, re-affirming US v Miller and Printz v US
United States v Miller concluded that citizens had a 2 nd amendment right to "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense.
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the righ t.
"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)
"[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily lives, and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Militia per US Law
TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several
States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workers employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the
United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the
United States.
Your fantasm of fat old farts with ar15s resisting gubmint tanks is... silly. Stupid. Childish.
Dangerous. Deadly.
Two rounds is no guarantee that you will put your target down. In Texas this week, the citizen who exchanged fire with the shooter actually put two rounds into him: one in the leg and one in the chest. The guy still managed to get into an SUV, shoot again, and then drive five miles up the highway at 95 mph. On the way, he made a phone call. He finally crashed and then shot himself. Two rounds was not enough.
Shooting another person and killing him is a lot harder than they make it look in the movies. Stories from the Old West (or high society duels) are full of people who squared off only a few dozen feet from each other and emptied their guns without hitting anything.
Guns are designed to kill people. The important thing is to understand the difference between "killing," which can be justified and legal; and "murder," which, by definition, is always illegal. Murder = an illegal killing. The guns are designed to kill, certainly, but they are intended for lawful killing. The guy who uses the gun to murder is using it wrong.
If the murderer had had only two rounds before reloading, the hero could simply have tackled him.
The vast majority of handguns are semi automatic capable of firing almost as rapidly as an AR-15. Everything that Kelley did would actually have been easier with a handgun
the AR-15 is the number one choice of fire arm owners, male and female. It is effective, reliable, has little recoil (which is why women like it)
My Comment was not limited to long guns.
As I stated, the vast majority of handguns are semi automatic capable of firing almost as rapidly as an AR-15. Even most pump shotguns can fire 8 rounds in much less than a minute
You’ve never been duck hunting with me. I’m not that good of a shot.
More than two rounds before reloading... for ducks? Seriously?
You're hilarious, Dean...
Not sure where you’re coming from. In Michigan they made us plug at three shells. Yeah I’ve dumped three and watched them fly away.
So you agree that there's no need for more than
twothree rounds?Great!
No I could of used all five if not for the damn government cutting me off at three.
Maybe a bazooka?
Yeah... That should do for that goddam duck!
As hard as ducks can be to hit, they aren't shooting back or preparing to attack. You have no reason to fear the duck. That complicates matters.
Let's give everyone a Main Battle Tank!
We are generous, aren't we?
No problem. We'll just roll it into the GOP tax cut. $2,720,000,000,000,000 is peanuts.
Yup! Cute as well as funny!
Sigh. Typical socialist. Thinks government should be giving things to citizens.
America has always had an armed populace, but mass shootings are a more recent phenomenon. Something like 3/1000ths of 1% of guns in America are actually used in crimes and they are harder to get than ever before. That tells me it's probably not the guns, but rather that something is changing in the people.
E.A Like Moral Value... shhhhssss uset hat word q u I t e ly some get upset!! :-)
And The Social dysfunction when Families are not " Unknown Factors " or are forced to " be spread by the Four Winds "?
The only civilians who need more than two rounds are mass murderers.
How long have you hated liberty?
You are funny!
No, I'm a proud disabled Veteran who has spent his entire life defending liberty against tyranny. you on the other hand appear to be a lemming who doesn't mind enslavement to the state
I actually answered this above in 7.
I love you, too!
Gee, Love!
Do you know stuff about Hawking? Will you whisper them in my ear?
The has to be pretty good. I mean... he can hardly move, but he has a child.
Respect!
And don't you 'gun grabbers' even THINK about trying to ban bump stocks, we know how this works, first you ban bump stocks, and then...THE GUBMINT CONFISCATES EVERYONE'S GUNS, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
We know you want to. There should be NO restrictions on our natural right to keep and bear arms sufficient for self defense against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC (including the government).
From District of Columbia v Heller, re-affirming US v Miller and Printz v US
United States v Miller concluded that citizens had a 2nd amendment right to "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense.
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Your fantasm of fat old farts with ar15s resisting gubmint tanks is... silly. Stupid. Childish.
Dangerous. Deadly.
Tell that to the victims' families.
Bob likes big government. All confirmed Socialists do. It was the government who didn't do their job. Imagine that.
Who would be silly enough to take on a tank with a rifle? We'll be getting our tanks from the National Guard armory.
So... Your fantasm is the Guard resisting the Army? Wow...
That's the design. You should really get educated about our system.
Ummm..... The Civil War is over...
I think it's funny that people think there is much to debate. The cause and events of the Civil War are very well known.
I'm considering a 2nd amendment article. You'll be entertained...
and I sincerely hope we never have another. But if the federal government gets out of control, the people are ready.
Rambo fantasies are infantile.