General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTop 10 myths about mass shootings
James Alan Fox is a professor of criminology at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, in the United States. He is the Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice and former dean at Northeastern University.
Fox often gives lectures and expert testimony, including appearances before the United States Congress, and White House meetings with the President. He served on President Bill Clintons advisory committee on school shootings, and a Department of Education Expert Panel on Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools.[8]
Fox has served as a visiting fellow with the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, and an NBC News Analyst.
Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.
Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.
Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/12/top_10_myths_about_mass_shooti.html?camp=obinsite
Some things to consider from an expert on mass shootings.
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)We don't need feel good laws just "to do something" - they need to be based on a ration examination of the facts to ensure they actually work. Don't you agree?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)
hack89
(39,171 posts)he is not linked to the NRA in any manner.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)It has an ostrich in its usual pose.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...I'm offended.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)There are simple FACTS in the OP...
is it too hard to actually discuss those or even attempt to prove them wrong, or is it just laziness?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)you are trying to deflect from the FACTS found in that article...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)yup
99Forever
(14,524 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Is there a reason you engage in ad hominem attacks?
...surely you can do better...
Turbineguy
(37,372 posts)it's just a number unless it happens to be you or you are horrified by it.
How do you get to be an expert? Experience.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Since they don't happen as often as we think we shouldn't worry about them. All is well, ignore the corpses of the children as you exit the building. One dolt who tried to blow up a plane has everyone taking their shoes off at the Airport. A dozen mass shootings since Columbine, and we won't even consider new laws to prevent it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)A gun expert was saying laws restricting the rate of fire are what's needed.
I agree.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,212 posts)Too bad, so sad.
I'll be happy to pass the word on to the 27 families.....
hack89
(39,171 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,212 posts)Just curious.
Even the article that you posted said that proposition was dubious.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The Magistrate
(95,257 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I would fund states so that they can properly support the databases used for background checks - there is a lot of missing or inaccurate data.
I would support making background checks mandatory for all private sales.
I would support enhanced mental health care for all.
I would refocus the justice system away from the war on drugs and onto violent crime.
The Magistrate
(95,257 posts)I recall some months back we went several rounds on an NRA checklist, and you hewed pretty close to their screed. I welcome the apparent change. Throw in limits on amounts purchased ( which relates of course to criminal trafficking rather than mass shootings ) and we would probably have a hard time finding things to scrap about on this subject, at least scrap with any heat....
hack89
(39,171 posts)The Magistrate
(95,257 posts)I hope more on both sides can take that attitude.
jillan
(39,451 posts)stop all nuts from going on a murder spree -
B U T
if legislation stops just one Columbine or Newtown or Tucson or VA Tech or a shooting in the southside of Chicago~
isn't it worth it????
I mean, isn't this the REAL pro-life position?
JanMichael
(24,895 posts)every.single.one.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but that does not mean it will stop mass killings.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)Fox's first "myth":
Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.
Maybe he's using some tricky definition, but according to an extensive investigation of mass murders -- defined as 4+ deaths not including shooter's in a public place -- led by Mother Jones editor Mark Follman and recently updated, there have been 61 such shootings in the last 30 years, and 2012 has been the deadliest so far:
Follman, in an NPR interview last Friday:
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/167287385/u-s-has-had-seven-mass-killings-this-year
The updated MJ article is here:
"A Guide to Mass Shootings in America" - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map#13560246258941&action=collapse_widget&id=9254390
And a very chilling guide it is.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But experts say it's the spectacular nature of the attacks that give public mass shootings such impact beyond the affected communities, with intense media coverage lending extra piquance: five or six or even seven attacks in one year may not be statistically significant, but they're emotionally resonant.
"What weve seen after Aurora and what weve seen after Newtown is kind of the typical response that weve seen over the last 50 years following high-profile mass public shootings," said Grant Duwe, a criminologist for the Minnesota Department of Corrections who's written a book on the history of mass murders since 1900.
The country saw an increase in mass public killings during the 1980s and '90s, but Duwe's tallies showed that mass shootings had decreased since then. The 26 public shooting massacres he tallied between 2000 and 2009 were significantly down from the 43 cases he counted in the 1990s. (Duwe counts shootings in public places that result in four or more dead, but he excludes robberies and gang violence.)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-mass-shootings-common-20121218,0,6511082.story
allrevvedup
(408 posts)are on the rise, and 2012 has been the worst in 30 years. Basically this article spins it by saying it doesn't really matter:
Nice debate strategy, but no cigar.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you simply disagree with them and this is your way to dismiss differing opinions.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)I'm pointing out that this academic's spin is based on horseshit.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is why President Clinton used his expertise.
You, on the otherhand, are another angry internet poster. I know who I would believe.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
treestar
(82,383 posts)We need laws like those in other countries. Nobody has a gun without a license and only for hunting or self defense for people far from police protection.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so what ever decisions are made are grounded in reality. So they can be effective.
rivegauche
(601 posts)There is no damned way on earth anyone is going to convince me that more guns, or at least preserving the status quo, is the answer to less gun violence. "I have a flea infestation at my house. Oh I know, the answer to that is bring in more fleas!" It's simply stupid and insane. SO WHAT if HE SAYS none of the alleged mass-murderers had a record, or had a know mental illness? They still had access to a gun and they committed mass murder. You can't legislate against insanity but you can take the fucking guns out of their hands. I'm so tired of this justification nonsense. Other countries live without everyone stockpiling weapons, so can we.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the OP is simply laying some facts that gain be used to guide the conversation over the next month or so.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)or are you simply looking for a way to ignore inconvenient facts?
Can you actually refute them?
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it simply debunks myths and lays out facts so that informed decisions can be made.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Couldn't agree more.
"...mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends."
Unless of course their family and friends didn't have those weapons either.
He is right - to accomplish something meaningful, we would need stop the BS, and enact much more stringent restrictions & bans then the weak AWB...the only way to severly reduce unwanted access to guns is to substantially reduce the number of guns. And of course there is need to limit those types that are available at the same time.
renie408
(9,854 posts)if it isn't the guns?
Cause, you know, I am thinking that American society isn't 32 times more corrupting than Australian society, and yet we have 32 times more gun deaths.
And if guns are so GREAT why does the NRA lobby like crazy to have the ATF restricted from releasing gun data on specific guns used in crimes and to keep the CDC from doing research into the causes of gun fatalities?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I can support RKBA but I hate these fucking propaganda types of posts. Using words and any kind of stat you can make up to support your position sucks!
If I look at mass killing over some fucking period I pick I'll bet I can prove they are deminishing.
hack89
(39,171 posts)did you look at his credentials?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)The intro is also a propaganda kind of thing to add credence to what follows.
Someone with a lot of time could make a similar statement proving the opposite.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so explain to me how he is a gunner.