New Research Confirms Gun Rampages Are Rising—and Armed Civilians Don't Stop Them
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/mass-shootings-rampages-rising-data
Data on 84 attacks echoes MoJo's investigation and further debunks the NRA's "good guys with guns" myth.
New Research Confirms Gun Rampages Are Rising—and Armed Civilians Don't Stop Them
—By Mark Follman
Thu Apr. 11, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
By the time the nation confronted the unthinkable school massacre in Connecticut last December, Mother Jones' groundbreaking investigation of mass shootings, launched the prior summer, had shown that mass gun violence in America was on the rise. The trend appeared to be no coincidence in light of the proliferation of guns and looser gun laws nationwide. One leading criminologist took issue with our criteria, arguing that mass shootings had not become more common. But now, research from an expert on criminal justice at Texas State University further shows that gun rampages in the United States have escalated.
The research, to be published in a book in July, confirms that:
* Public shooting rampages have spiked in particular over the last few years
* Many of the attackers were heavily armed
* None of the shootings was stopped by an ordinary citizen using a gun
The author of the study, Pete Blair, advises law enforcement officials and has conducted extensive research on gun rampages in workplaces, schools, and other public locations. He gathered data on 84 "active shooter events" (ASEs) between 2000 and 2010 in which the killer's primary motive appeared to be mass murder. This chart shows his findings on the frequency of cases:
Pete Blair, Texas State University
Notably, the jump in attacks in 2009 and 2010 was prior to the massacres in Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newtown, and numerous other locations during the last two years. Although Blair's research does not cover 2011 and 2012, he concludes that "our tracking indicates that the increased number of attacks continued in those years." As our own investigation showed, there were a record number of mass shootings in 2012.
= new reply since forum marked as read
He gave it way up in thread.
What he s refusing to admit s that it was after the shooting, and detained by an ex cop, his principal, outside Pearl school.
These facts are like hard to understand
The sad part is they are used so often, all it takes....
Best part.. They are a few examples, out of tens of thousands where no good guy with a gun was present
From the article:
The claim that Myrick's actions saved additional lives stems from reports that Woodham was on his way to Pearl Junior High School when Myrick subdued him, but evidence documenting that Woodham had such an intent is not conclusive.
So at best, it's essentially an unsubstantiated rumor.
From the source you gave me, "Chicago News Bench," which prides itself as "News and Conservative Opinion Without the Tinfoil Hats"
, you then have to redirect to another conservative pundit's blog, Dave Kopel, who finally appears to cite the actual piece at hand.
That was 1999 opinion column by Wayne Laugensen of the Boulder (Colorado) Weekly, an alternative newspaper in Colorado, which as you known is quite a ways away from Mississippi where the story took place back in 1997. Laugensen is a former editor of such esteemed publications such as Soldier of Fortune.
So basically you have here is an offhand, unsourced line in an opinion piece written two years after the fact by a heavily biased author and published in a small, obscure weekly alternative newspaper from Colorado, and then re-printed several times over in the conservative blogosphere.
Gotcha.
As for your second citation--Murderpedia.org--all that appears to be is a former version of the Wikipedia page on the shootings but without the citations as Wikipedia includes. The current Wikipedia page on the Pearl shootings do not include the mention of Pearl Junior High School, which leads me to believe that any such mention was removed for either being completely unsourced or not having come from a reliable source.
Listen, if you can show me some reliable news (not opinion) piece from a proper source (i.e. CNN, Associated Press, New York Times, a local daily publication) or from the investigation of the shootings by police themselves, I'll gladly admit you are right. I tried and I honestly couldn't find anything beyond what you yourself had posted.
But right now, all I see you doing is pull stuff straight out of your own ass to try to prove a point you can't prove with actual facts, and that's not going to cut it for me. Nor is "I lived nearby at the time and I swore I heard about it on the news" going to cut it either. Sorry.
Your fantasy about a mass shooting is that you and your gun put the brakes to it "pow now."
My scenario is that there are two or more of you "heroes" and you end up capping each other or clipping a bystander, adding to the chaos.
Tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead. After all, in "Gun Guy Theoryland" ALL CCW permit holders are smarter than the cops, better trained and better looking to boot. But I hang out with a lot of you guys on the weekends and I know the actual truth about all three. 
You mean "progressive and fact-based"? That filter? 
You're telling a man his concussion isn't worth treating because he says he slipped on ice, and you believe the proper term is "slush."
It's like a sociopathic Cliff Clavin.
"It's a little-known fact, the proper term for someone who posts NRA crap on a progressive discussion board? 'Asshole'."
All I can offer is that the rest of the world sees the NRA position on gun safety as full-toothed madness. And espousing it in public will get you the sort of attention reserved for lunatics and stooges. 
Have a good day...in fantasy and where you will be able to be the good guy with a gun.
Who's ccw happens to be a badge and have training.
But I am sure you did not realize that.
people watching from a distance can't tell who is who. Of course they could use the horns I guess. Or something like that... 
Let's just start by saying the subject of the OP is gun deaths, and the fact that we KNOW how to curtail them. The reason we don't is that we always run into insane protestations from RW gun weirdos (supported by weapons manufacturers money) who think gun deaths aren't really a problem.
The rest of us know better - and we're winning.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
It's good advertising, but not realistic. Most people carry because they want to be prepared for a criminal attack... mugging or robbery or assault.
I don't subscribe to their talking points; they are designed to gin up support and emotions and sway public opinion. I don't need to spin fantasies.
The point stands that many of the shootings that take place are in designated "gun-free" zones. So, naturally, if a spree shooting did happen in such a zone, nobody there would be legally carrying, permit or not.
The various counties of the State of New York issue virtually no concealed carry permits; ergo there will be very few cases of CCW permitees using guns in self-defense. So, then pointing at how few times CCW permittees stop crime as a justification for limiting CCW become somewhat disingenuous.
Regardless, even if you disproved the NRA talking point that CCW permittees stop spree shootings, the following points remain:
CCW permittees are not causing spree shootings.
CCW permittees are not making spree shootings worse.
A CCW permittee who is not carrying (includes but is not limited to gun-free zones) will not stop a spree shooting with a concealed handgun.
Ergo, cracking down on CCW permits will not affect spree shootings.
Some historical data...
I complied information from the DoJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, particularly on mass murder. Here is the trend in 4-victim and 5-or-more victim homicides, per capita, from 1976 to 2005.
As you can see, the mass-murder rate (mass murder defined as either 4+ or 5+ victims per incident) was trending downward. Not just spree shootings, but also intimate family murders.
I also strongly disagree with the statement The trend appeared to be no coincidence in light of the proliferation of guns and looser gun laws nationwide.
According to surveys, the number of people and households that own guns has gone down somewhat over the last few decades. So already, there are somewhat fewer people that have instant access to guns. And looser standards on concealed-carry permits or whatever is not what's driving spree shootings.
People are going home, loading up, and taking out their anger and frustration on the some unfortunate group of people that have nothing to do with the shooter. That has nothing to do with whether the shooter is a CCW permittee.
For it to matter, a CCW permittee would have to have been carrying in his or her routine, normal fashion when he or she snapped and took out a bunch of people. Since this does not apparently happen, it's not an issue.
It seems to be getting worse, to be spiking. However, there does not also seem to be a hell of a lot we can do about it. It's still way to random and rare to deal with in any effective manner. Waging a war on pistol grips and new-manufacture magazine capacity isn't going to help any.
Pursuing our other liberal goals, such as universal single-player health insurance (mental and physical), reducing income inequality, breaking the stranglehold of the oligarchs, reviving unions, making secondary education (including trade schools) cheap or free, bringing back a sane trade policy by getting out of the WTO and NAFTA, etc., would both make the lives of everybody in the country a lot better AND reduce violence.
How's the data on wounded people looking?
And they've increased. Dramatically.
The common focus on gun deaths as a marker to illustrate America’s “gun problem” obscures an alarming trend. The number of persons who suffer nonfatal gunshot injuries―that is, who are shot but do not die―has risen over the same period. As graphically demonstrated by the chart below, this means simply that more people are being shot by guns every year. In other words, America’s gun problem is getting worse, not better.
Which you must know, all the more reason to talk about "aggravated assaults."
It's proportional to the assault rate.
And it also follows general crime trends.
In addition, if your assertion were true, then why disparity between size of the murder incidents?
Singles show a very sharp drop, but doubles and higher show a much flatter overall trend.
The homicide rate tracks the overall crime rate.
If what you say is true, then the homicide rate should drop sharper than the overall violent crime rate.
...then shrug your shoulders and say "it's not in there."
