The map and the database behind it is from Mother Jones magazine. They first published this in 2012 when there were 62 such incidents in the 30 years between 1982 and 2012. Since January 2013 there have been 53 more. There are other similar databases out there, however they believe theirs is most conservative.
The criteria they used for a mass shooting was the FBI definition of a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. That criteria was changed by Obama in 2013 to three or more victims killed. So it may be hard for some to say those shootings are increasing in the last six years and 11 months. But in my non-statistical mind it seems pretty obvious that they are. 62 in 30 years averages about one every six months. 53 in almost seven years averages closer to one every six weeks. Although I concede that the frequency cannot be accurately mapped due to the different data criteria. Although it seems the more recent ones definitely had many more than three victims, and only 16 out of 53 had three fatalities.
At first glance I also wondered about the zero mass shootings in the states of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, both Dakotas, the three upper tier New England states, and Alaska. Probably that is a factor of their less diverse populations. But maybe less stress and a more laid back lifestyle in the country applies also. Or something else entirely?
Here is a link to the updated article:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/
The quantity of school shootings is small compared to the quantity of population.
ReplyDeleteI expect a statistical analysis would yield that it's likely to see small populations states such as Wyoming not having such shootings simply becuase of probability. I didn't do the math, of course.
Sven -
ReplyDeleteI suspect you are right. But I would not dismiss other factors.
I'm not sure that it isn't pure statistical chance, given the wide variety of circumstances and motivation of the shooters. I suspect that there's just as many angry white guys in Montana as there is in Oregon, but the richer target environment makes the pure chance for a nutter shooting higher.
DeleteDoes anybody else wonder why:
ReplyDeletea) Las Vegas is the mass shooting capital of the US
b) the major cities (LA, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia are under-represented
c) Orlando and Denver seem to be tied for second
Blacksburg, VA is third on the list due to a single gruesome incident but that still isn't good. Southwestern VA is about as rural as you can get except for the college in the town.
Pluto -
DeleteLas Vegas was a one-off, a terrible one, but still a single incident. CA, TX, & FL are the three most populated states, and they seem to have the most mass shootings, although I did not double-check the totals in the database. But NY and PA are close behind them in population numbers and have far fewer mass shootings. So your point (b) seems correct, or partially anyway.
Mass shootings are still very rare events, so a couple of incidents can skew things.
DeleteI grew up in Denver and knew one of the Columbine victims who is a relative of my best friend.
I don't think there is anything about this area that factors into making this more common here. It's not clear to me what factor could cause these incidents that also does not affect the millions of others living here.
Andy -
DeleteI lived in Aurora for six months or so. And later lived another six months in Littleton, not far from Columbine. Always felt safe in both places. I think Colorado has as little to fear from mass shootings as any other state their size. They are a piker in mass shootings compared to many other states.
Wikipedia claims well over 300 mass shootings so far in 2019, a national disgrace. Eleven of those were school shootings. All in just the ten and a half months of 2019. 54 were killed or wounded during those 11 school shootings. Which is why I think our schoolchildren deserve the same benefits we give to veterans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019#List
OOps! Make that 12. One of the victims is a ten year old.
DeleteThe things that make me vastly pessimistic about these are that:
Delete1) Firearms are so deeply embedded in the U.S. that it would take an immense, sustained political and social effort to change that, and
2) The gun-nuts realize that, realize that the U.S. political system has numerous veto points, and so all they need to do is capture a relative handful of U.S. politicians to lock up any sort of regulation, regardless of how innocuous. This isn't a lack of "both sides" :I'm sure they'd happily co-opt people on both sides, but they've got claws deep into the GOP and that's good enough for them, so it's now a partisan political issue, too.
And, sadly, given the OTHER "issues" positions of the GOP the national party that have the effect of repulsing everyone but the Very Rich, the racists, xenophobes, and culture warriors (and their enablers), the party can't afford to lose a single shooter.
The "I-like-to-go-to-the-range-and-have-no-problem-with-universal-background-checks" sort of gun moderates - who I suspect are a vast majority of firearms owners - aren't going to move out of the political Right over this issue, so to cater to the whackadoodle 2A loons doesn't hurt the GOP.
I mean...Sandy Hook pretty much made this brutally clear. There's a hardcore constituency for maximal private firearms un-regulation no matter how many kiddos will die. If that didn't move the needle, what will? Sheer volume? Your map points up the degree to which that hasn't worked.
OK. Now I've depressed myself even FURTHER...
Germany had a total of 11 massacres post 1945 not counting what the Stalinists did in Eastern Germany.
ReplyDeleteThat's with roughly 1/5th to 1/4 of current U.S. population over the years. Not all of these massacres were shootings.