I was doing some research on the internet after the Louisiana Theater shooting. One of the problems in doing the research is the lack of standardized terms. Most people would call what happened there a “mass shooting”.
The FBI doesn’t use the term “mass shooting”. They use “mass murder”, “spree killer” and “serial killer”. The closest FBI term to “mass shooting” is “mass murder” defined as: the shooter kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. Under this definition, a drug deal gone bad resulting in four deaths becomes a mass murder.
The Mother Jones website, even though they lean left, maintains an accurate, detailed spreadsheet of mass shooting incidents that have occurred since 1982.
Mother Jones Mass Shooting Data
Another important thing they have done is offered a sensible definition of “Mass Shooting”:
Mother Jones Mass Shooting Definition
The attack must have occurred essentially in a single incident, in a public place.
- The attack must have occurred essentially in a single incident, in a public place.
- Excludes crimes of armed robbery, gang violence, or domestic violence
- Focuses on cases where the motive appears to be indiscriminate mass murder.
- The killer had to have taken the lives of at least four people.
This makes sense to me. But not everyone uses the same definition so beware.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley made the statement, “During the first 204 days of 2015, there have been 204 mass shootings”. My first thought was what kind of drugs is this guy taking? But further research found a website that “verifies” his statement.
The key is looking at their definition of “mass shooting”. Shooting Tracker dot com’s definition is: A mass shooting is when four or more people are shot in an event, or related series of events, likely without a cooling off period. The key word being “shot” not “killed”. It works for them, “them” being gun control proponents. It gets the number of mass “shootings” way up.
Using the Shooting Tracker definition, if a drug deal goes bad, four people are shot and nobody dies, it’s still a mass shooting. If three armed burglars break into a house and they shoot the homeowner who in return shoots all three of the burglars, that’s a mass shooting. Chicago probably has five or six mass shootings a weekend based on this criteria.
Anyway, Back to Mother Jones. I like their data collection and definition, but under that definition, the Louisiana Theater Shooting doesn’t qualify as a Mass Shooting. Only two people died, not counting the shooter. And I have a problem with that. There’s no doubt the shooter planned on killing a lot more than two people. He shot and wounded nine people, they just didn’t die. Mother Jones definition doesn’t take in to account intent.
I’m aware that if Mother Jones considered intent and added incidents that meet the rest of their requirements but less than four people were killed, the number of mass shootings would go up. Not good for the Gun Rights side of the argument. And if it’s not good for the Gun Rights bunch, why wouldn’t they do it????
I thought about the “why” of it while I looked up incidents I knew would fit the mass shooting criteria if the number of deaths was reduced. The answer slowly came to me. The mass shootings listed in the Mother Jones database all ended one of three ways:
- Shot by police
- Arrested by police
- Suicide.
Exception: Gabby Gifford’s shooter was tackled by bystanders while reloading or when his gun jammed, I forget which.
The first incident I thought of that would meet the intent criteria was the Clackamas Town Center shooting. In that incident, a shooter armed with an AR-15 killed two and wounded one before being confronted by a concealed carry permit holder. The shooter retreated to a stairwell and committed suicide.
The second was the New Life Church incident where a shooter killed two people before a church member working security at the church shot and wounded him. The shooter committed suicide before the police arrived.
The third was the Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital incident where a shooter shot one person before being stopped by a doctor armed with a concealed weapon.
And there it is. If Mother Jones added incidents like these, they would be maintaining a list of mass shootings that were stopped by a civilian with a gun. Something they claim never happens.
Another quick internet search brought up this list of seven additional potential mass shootings stopped by a civilian with a gun.
Mass Shootings Stopped by an Armed Citizen
It’s funny how the liberals fall all over each other in the comments section pointing out that many of the people stopping the shooter were off duty police officers. I wonder if they’ve ever read the Armed Citizen column and how they explain all of those situations where armed citizens stopped crimes.
Don’t get me wrong, the Mother Jones Mass Shooting database or spreadsheet is a good source of information, even though it is incomplete. Data I have extracted:
- Of the last 73 mass shootings, assault type weapons were used in only 13.
- Of the last 73 mass shootings, 46 of 66 shooters had signs of mental illness.
- The worst mass shooting in the U.S. was committed with two handguns.
The other best source of information on most any crime related subject is the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. These reports are generated for each year and are usually published in April-May time frame for the previous year.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports by Year
Usually. Strangely enough, with 2016 only three months away, the complete report for 2014 has not been published. There is a partial report available for January to June. Maybe the report is being held up because the numbers in the report don’t support the Obama Administration’s claims that crime, especially gun crime is getting worse. Gun sales are up, way up. Over 2 million a month at the peak. Maybe the report doesn’t support their “More guns, more crime” mantra.