It's precisely because we have far more control over heart disease that we do not fear it.
I can accept getting heart disease—maybe it was my fault?—much more readily that being actively, senselessly, killed by someone else. Terrorists know this too, which is why definitionally terrorism is meant to induce fear by way of its unpredictability.
You wrote "security theater" to imply that we shouldn't attempt to address terrorism and school shootings because they don't kill enough people. I think that we ought to fund research into good, effective, ways to reduce gun violence _because_ it's something that we don't control ourselves.
I would argue heart disease being the leading cause of death in many 'developed' countries strongly indicates that we, as a society, do not have control over it.
it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings
“The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting.
this seems weak. if shootings are rare events stopping one would make a considerable difference. just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection? What if we had a Vegas type event around a school? I don't really understand the thesis here
The thesis is that, because these events are so rare, the cost of prevention outweighs the benefit.
Yes, it sounds cold, but human life has a certain value, and just like any rational decision, we have to consider in some objective manner whether conceivable preventative measures are worthwhile.
>just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection
Do you not normally make decisions regarding the future based on observed past data?
The problem is that because it is such a rare event, efficacy of any intervention is extremely hard to evaluate. So essentially whatever you do is guesswork.
To put it simply: how's do you know if whatever you did has an effect instead of the numbers being a result of a random downswing?
(You can know if you can know by employing Bayesian statistics - with these low rates you really cannot.)
Also, how come the incidence of these types of shootings are so much lower in other parts of the world if there is no policy that will help prevent them?
> if shootings are rare events stopping one would make a considerable difference. just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection? What if we had a Vegas type event around a school? I don't really understand the thesis here
The thesis is that you ought not make expensive, likely unconstitutional policy goals based on a fantasy about stopping a type of crime which happens less than once every seven years (in a country that is several times larger than the next most populous developed country), based on an unlimited attack on all risk.
The projected effect of this policy is so low, in fact, that it could just as easily cause more deaths, youth deaths even, than we expect it to limit; and there's a good chance that the policy will do essentially nothing at all, even for the limited cases it applies to.
added:
If all risks are worthy of unlimited policy resources, I hereby declare that all children should be driven to school in Caterpillar 797s, to avoid the problems of pedestrian collisions and deadly vehicular collisions.
>Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving 4 or more victims and at least 2 deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant.
IIRC there was a wave of school shootings in 1992-96, almost a dozen total; Columbine was the worst of them in terms of casualties, but in some ways just the culmination of a pattern. I don't know why you would start counting _after_ 1996.
Perhaps they should do a case control study - places that had mass shootings vs places that didn’t? I’m pretty sure there have been no mass shootings at gun shows or gun clubs, I wonder if there might be some relationship there worth exploring?
The numbers are so tiny that comparisons are pretty much irrelevant. Since 1996 there have been just 8 mass k-12 shootings (incidents involving 4 or more school deaths, excluding the assailant), in a nation of 330 million people.
That's so far into small numbers territory that any comparisons are guaranteed to be overwhelmed by noise.
I have seen those studies pop up from time to time on HN with conclusions altering between "it's reachin worrying proportions", "there is an increase", "there is no increase", "they are so rare as to not worth considering".
From what I understand, the decision of what kinds of shootings are included has a large influence on the conclusion - e.g., the "there have been 18 shootings in 2018 so far" articles from a while ago used a comparatively low threshold for inclusion.
The threshold for this study seems to be "4 or more victims", which I think is similar to the threshold official publications used at the beginning of the Obama administration. I believe there were complaints that the threshold is unreasonably high which caused it to be adjusted - however, I don't have any sources for that ready, so if anyone knows more, please correct me.
In any case, it's important to look at the criteria if one wants to compare those studies.
It's not clear to me why this study would set those thresholds for the underlying data (4+ Victims & 2+ deaths), this seems to downplay the number of incidents. At the very least there should be some explanation of why this limit is in place, as it has a significant impact on the findings.
Help, I cannot find the actual study (paper). It's referenced (in this article) as:
James Alan Fox and Emma E. Fridel, "The Three R's of School Shootings: Risk, Readiness, and Response," in H. Shapiro, ed., The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions
Based on a variety of comments here, I was curious about how many mass shootings there have been over the years. Mother Jones had a list that looked pretty good (well cited). I put it into a graph, which I think makes it a lot easier to understand.
Reasonable additions to this might be adding a line for type of weapon used.
Compared to the US in the past schools are safer, but in terms of school killings compared to those in other nations, the US is still ridiculously high.
I take your point but, prior to Dunblane, I believe there was one death and 4 injuries in school shootings. All with shotguns.
I have a suspicion that the handgun ban and the lack of subsequent school shootings might not be completely causal.
BTW that's not to suggest that the ban was wrong. I was entirely supportive and still am. I think the UK's approach to guns is laudable and should be encouraged elsewhere.
[+] [-] Bernard_sha_256|8 years ago|reply
In cases like these I like to take the Freakonomics formula for risk, that outrage factors more into observed risk than actual danger.
We're more worried about Terrorism than Heart Disease, even as we have far more control over the latter.
[+] [-] frozenesper|8 years ago|reply
I can accept getting heart disease—maybe it was my fault?—much more readily that being actively, senselessly, killed by someone else. Terrorists know this too, which is why definitionally terrorism is meant to induce fear by way of its unpredictability.
You wrote "security theater" to imply that we shouldn't attempt to address terrorism and school shootings because they don't kill enough people. I think that we ought to fund research into good, effective, ways to reduce gun violence _because_ it's something that we don't control ourselves.
[+] [-] yanslookup|8 years ago|reply
If you think people are being overly emotional over these issues try to imagine a plausible reason why.
[+] [-] mieseratte|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftyguy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SonicSoul|8 years ago|reply
“The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting.
this seems weak. if shootings are rare events stopping one would make a considerable difference. just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection? What if we had a Vegas type event around a school? I don't really understand the thesis here
[+] [-] allthenews|8 years ago|reply
Yes, it sounds cold, but human life has a certain value, and just like any rational decision, we have to consider in some objective manner whether conceivable preventative measures are worthwhile.
>just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection
Do you not normally make decisions regarding the future based on observed past data?
[+] [-] AstralStorm|8 years ago|reply
To put it simply: how's do you know if whatever you did has an effect instead of the numbers being a result of a random downswing?
(You can know if you can know by employing Bayesian statistics - with these low rates you really cannot.)
[+] [-] sunsunsunsun|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
The thesis is that you ought not make expensive, likely unconstitutional policy goals based on a fantasy about stopping a type of crime which happens less than once every seven years (in a country that is several times larger than the next most populous developed country), based on an unlimited attack on all risk.
The projected effect of this policy is so low, in fact, that it could just as easily cause more deaths, youth deaths even, than we expect it to limit; and there's a good chance that the policy will do essentially nothing at all, even for the limited cases it applies to.
added: If all risks are worthy of unlimited policy resources, I hereby declare that all children should be driven to school in Caterpillar 797s, to avoid the problems of pedestrian collisions and deadly vehicular collisions.
[+] [-] 0003|8 years ago|reply
17.
Literally happening just as this was posted: https://www.wxyz.com/news/police-responding-to-reports-of-sh...
Edit: Actually this may or may not meet the definition since their definition requires 4 or more casualties. Still.
[+] [-] cimmanom|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] welcome_dragon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghufran_syed|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlechha|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielvf|8 years ago|reply
That's so far into small numbers territory that any comparisons are guaranteed to be overwhelmed by noise.
[+] [-] dv_dt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] testvox|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xg15|8 years ago|reply
From what I understand, the decision of what kinds of shootings are included has a large influence on the conclusion - e.g., the "there have been 18 shootings in 2018 so far" articles from a while ago used a comparatively low threshold for inclusion.
The threshold for this study seems to be "4 or more victims", which I think is similar to the threshold official publications used at the beginning of the Obama administration. I believe there were complaints that the threshold is unreasonably high which caused it to be adjusted - however, I don't have any sources for that ready, so if anyone knows more, please correct me.
In any case, it's important to look at the criteria if one wants to compare those studies.
[+] [-] cliff_hanger|8 years ago|reply
Closest thing I can find to an accurate data-set is here: https://www.kaggle.com/ecodan/us-school-shootings-dataset/no.... Data seems to be a blend of a northwestern study and the wikipedia list of shootings.
[+] [-] crescentfresh|8 years ago|reply
James Alan Fox and Emma E. Fridel, "The Three R's of School Shootings: Risk, Readiness, and Response," in H. Shapiro, ed., The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions
But from Wiley's listing of papers in this volume (https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Wiley+Handbook+on+Violence+i...) the only article written by Fox and Fridel is called "The Menace of School Shootings in America: Panic and Overresponse".
Maybe it was renamed since?
[+] [-] codemac|8 years ago|reply
This data seems to be missing what a lot of people would call "school shootings".
[+] [-] huffmsa|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patch_collector|8 years ago|reply
Reasonable additions to this might be adding a line for type of weapon used.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mwNeZ_KHL_nLd85eOeI-...
[+] [-] dv_dt|8 years ago|reply
https://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-...
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bhldr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmritard96|8 years ago|reply
And most relevantly, the difference now is access to information anywhere/everywhere and in more detail/angle/opinion without a lot of latency.
[+] [-] epanchin|8 years ago|reply
A drop in the number of deaths might just demonstrate an improvement in emergency medical procedures.
[+] [-] Tech-Noir|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucozade|8 years ago|reply
I have a suspicion that the handgun ban and the lack of subsequent school shootings might not be completely causal.
BTW that's not to suggest that the ban was wrong. I was entirely supportive and still am. I think the UK's approach to guns is laudable and should be encouraged elsewhere.
[+] [-] CompanionCuuube|8 years ago|reply
2001: 2,996 people killed in plane attacks
2002-2018: 0 people killed in plane attacks
[+] [-] ng-user|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adammichaelc|8 years ago|reply
There is a clear upward-trend since the 60’s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_...