3 ms·

I didn't count the 5 entries in that period with 3 deaths. They use the new (since 2014) definition of 3 deaths. Here's the relevant law: https://www.law.corne

by dalke 10y ago

I didn't count the 5 entries in that period with 3 deaths. They use the new (since 2014) definition of 3 deaths. Here's the relevant law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/540B https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/540B . You are correct - the Mother Jones table does include the killer, if the killer also died. I checked the killings with 4 deaths. The suspected coffee shop police killer was killed by police at another time, and the Alturas tribal shooting killer was arrested. The killings with 5 and 6 deaths were all done by a single person. So that doesn't explain the discrepancy. The editorial author believes the new definition was done for political reasons, and prefers to use the older one. See http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/ http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-s... for another op-ed by the same author. You'll note that the author has "data on [US] mass public shootings from 1977 to 1999." Why, I wonder, did the author only report on a 7 year baseline, rather than 40 years? That longer baseline would help with the regression to the mean problem intrinsic to this analysis. He's had years to do that. His NY Post piece even chides the FBI for using a too-short baseline since the early 2000s had a fewer than average number of killing. Going back to your "notoriously anti-gun" description. Why does it matter? Mother Jones gave all of their data, with links to the primary source for verification. My cursory spot check found no discrepancies. Since the editorial author appears to be "notoriously" pro-gun, given his book and op-ed pieces, but doesn't give the full data or explain the choice of baseline - and does a poor job of interpreting the numbers - shouldn't those conclusions be even more suspect?

jrnichols 10y ago
> Here's the relevant law Not sure if they're using that for "mass shootings" as it refers to what they will consider a "serial killing." I did find this interesting article about the varying definitions, though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-have-three-different-definitions-of-mass-shooting-and-we-probably-need-more/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-ha... > Going back to your "notoriously anti-gun" description. Why does it matter? It matters to me because when I see them as a source, I know to do a little more legwork and check the sources before sharing the information that they have presented. Mother Jones is one of an unfortunately long list of websites that I don't trust very much. The bright side to that is that it's spurred me to dig further into topics.
- dalke 10y ago
  Hmmm, you're right. I didn't find the correct US law. A-ha! Found it! The bill which changed it was the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, 28 USC 530C(b)(1)(M)(i), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ265/pdf/PLAW-112publ265.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ265/pdf/PLAW-112pu... and the law text is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530C https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530C : > For purposes of this subparagraph — (I) the term “mass killings” means 3 or more killings in a single incident; and (II) the term “place of public use” has the meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code. It looks like Mother Jones is using the current federal definition. Agreed, just because there is a definition doesn't mean it's a good definition. The idea that 18 people can be shot but only one killed should still make it be a mass shooting, but the FBI wouldn't count it. That's the argument given https://www.massshootingtracker.org/about https://www.massshootingtracker.org/about , which uses a different definition to conclude there have been "1306 mass shootings since 1/1/2013" Does feedback like this help you adjust your confidence levels? That is, might you think better of a Mother Jones analysis in the future, or give you less reason do the legwork? While on the other hand, this op-ed piece appears to have undercounted the numbers, and for unspecified reasons uses "the traditional FBI definition" rather than the current FBI definition. (I, and perhaps you also, thought he was using that phrase to mean something like 'the current and long-held definition', not 'the older definition, which I prefer'). Does that make you less likely to trust the general argument?
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    "Agreed, just because there is a definition doesn't mean it's a good definition." Whether it is a good definition or not is important, but you're not focusing on the salient fact: the definition was changed, recently, which makes it difficult to compare current data with older data. "for unspecified reasons uses "the traditional FBI definition" rather than the current FBI definition." Perhaps because he wants to actually compare the rates over time without talking nonsense. At some level the cutoff for what constitutes a "mass shooting" is fuzzy. That doesn't make it okay to do a straight comparison of data that uses one definition with data that uses another definition.

by dalke 10y ago

jrnichols 10y ago

> Here's the relevant law Not sure if they're using that for "mass shootings" as it refers to what they will consider a "serial killing." I did find this interesting article about the varying definitions, though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-have-three-different-definitions-of-mass-shooting-and-we-probably-need-more/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/26/we-ha... > Going back to your "notoriously anti-gun" description. Why does it matter? It matters to me because when I see them as a source, I know to do a little more legwork and check the sources before sharing the information that they have presented. Mother Jones is one of an unfortunately long list of websites that I don't trust very much. The bright side to that is that it's spurred me to dig further into topics.

dalke 10y ago
Hmmm, you're right. I didn't find the correct US law. A-ha! Found it! The bill which changed it was the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, 28 USC 530C(b)(1)(M)(i), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ265/pdf/PLAW-112publ265.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ265/pdf/PLAW-112pu... and the law text is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530C https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/530C : > For purposes of this subparagraph — (I) the term “mass killings” means 3 or more killings in a single incident; and (II) the term “place of public use” has the meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code. It looks like Mother Jones is using the current federal definition. Agreed, just because there is a definition doesn't mean it's a good definition. The idea that 18 people can be shot but only one killed should still make it be a mass shooting, but the FBI wouldn't count it. That's the argument given https://www.massshootingtracker.org/about https://www.massshootingtracker.org/about , which uses a different definition to conclude there have been "1306 mass shootings since 1/1/2013" Does feedback like this help you adjust your confidence levels? That is, might you think better of a Mother Jones analysis in the future, or give you less reason do the legwork? While on the other hand, this op-ed piece appears to have undercounted the numbers, and for unspecified reasons uses "the traditional FBI definition" rather than the current FBI definition. (I, and perhaps you also, thought he was using that phrase to mean something like 'the current and long-held definition', not 'the older definition, which I prefer'). Does that make you less likely to trust the general argument?
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "Agreed, just because there is a definition doesn't mean it's a good definition." Whether it is a good definition or not is important, but you're not focusing on the salient fact: the definition was changed, recently, which makes it difficult to compare current data with older data. "for unspecified reasons uses "the traditional FBI definition" rather than the current FBI definition." Perhaps because he wants to actually compare the rates over time without talking nonsense. At some level the cutoff for what constitutes a "mass shooting" is fuzzy. That doesn't make it okay to do a straight comparison of data that uses one definition with data that uses another definition.