Many regular readers of TAH probably are probably of the opinion that the media grossly exaggerates and/or deliberately slants any story that can possibly reflect badly on legal gun ownership. Regular readers are also probably convinced that the media often “gets it wrong” on such stories. Well, here’s yet another bit of support for those theses.
If one listens to the mass media, one would think that US mass shootings are increasing, killing more people – indeed, that they have become a veritable “epidemic”. Listening to the media, you’d also think that mass shootings are eminently preventable by “common sense” gun control measures and more/better mental health care.
Bottom line: actual research – something that the media rarely if ever does – concerning the issue shows the media has it 100% wrong. Again.
Two researchers, James Alan Fox and Monica J. DeLateur – both of Northeastern University, Boston, MA – recently studied US mass shootings on their own time and dime. They recently published their results in Homicide Studies: XX(X) 1–21. A synopsis of the article may be found here; the latest full version (PDF) may be found here.
Here’s the “Cliff Notes” version of some of Fox and DeLateur’s conclusions:
- Myth #1: Mass shooters snap and kill randomly. Not true. Mass shooters typically thoroughly plan their crimes in advance. Common motives are revenge, power, loyalty, terror, and profit. They may be disturbed, but they generally don’t “snap suddenly” and commit their crimes.
- Myth #2: Mass shootings are on the rise. Also not true. FBI data from 1976-2011 shows that there has been an average of roughly 20 mass shootings in the US annually over that period, with no apparent trend of either increase or decrease in the number of such annual period over the past 35 years. (They also indicate how recent Mother Jones “studies” purporting to show otherwise use arbitrary definitions and inconsistent methodology to falsely portray a recent rise in US mass shootings.)
- Myth #3: The trend in mass shooting incidents is one of increasing severity in terms of numbers killed. That’s simply not the case. Random variability seems to be more at play than anything else in determining the number killed in mass shooting incidents in any given year.
- Myth #4: “Scary black guns” (AKA “assault weapons”) are primarily to blame for mass shooting incidents. Not at all. They’re used in less than one fourth of mass shooting incidents. Handguns and shotguns account for over 3/4 of all mass shootings.
- Myth #5: Violent entertainment, especially video games are causally linked to mass shootings. Again, a myth without substance. Scientists cannot find a causal link between video games and mass shootings. The preference for violent video gaming on the part of those committing mass shootings may well be a symptom of an underlying disorder vice a cause of aberrant behavior. Or it may be a completely unrelated thing. We just don’t really know.
- Myth #6: There are telltale signs that can help us to identify mass shooters before they act. Not really. About 62% of mass shooters tend to be male Caucasians with subclinical psychological issues; blacks are overrepresented as well, constituting approximately 33% of mass shooters. These characteristics apply to a very large portion of the population – only a tiny fraction of which ever commit mass shootings. Given that only about 20 such incidents on average occur each year, figuring out who will and who won’t commit this type of crime a priori just simply isn’t possible.
- Myth #7: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of murderers. No. “A recent examination of 93 mass shootings from 2009 through September 2013, conducted by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2013), found no indication that any of the assailants were prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms because of mental illness.” (emphasis added)
- Myth #8: Restoring the Federal ban on assault weapons will prevent this type of crime. Not at all. About the same fraction of mass shootings – between 17% and 21% – were committed using “assault weapons” in the periods before, during, and after the effective period of the Federal assault weapon ban.
IMO, Fox and DeLateur missed two items worth stressing. First: a primary reason that none of those committing mass shootings between 2009 and Sep 2013 were prohibited from possessing firearms due to mental illness is the extreme difficulty in many jurisdictions in getting an obviously sick person involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment. (We can thank our liberal “brethren” for that, since laws they championed require courts to give greater deference to the rights of those who are mentally disturbed than the safety of society.) Indeed: as the Aurora incident shows, that difficulty extends to even getting a disturbed individual’s mental health counselor to alert law enforcement of a potential problem.
Second: the US population increased dramatically between 1976 and 2011 – from 218.04 million to 311.59 million, or by 42.9%. Since the number of mass shooting incidents has remained essentially constant since 1976 at an average of roughly 20 per year, that means the rate of mass shootings has declined substantially. In 1976, it was 1 such incident for roughly every 10,900,000 US residents (20 incidents in a population of 218.04 million); in 2011, it was roughly 1 incident per 14,180,000 US residents (22 incidents in a population of 311.59 million).
Finally, the true “money quote” is at the end of the article:
Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious. Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued. (emphasis added)
In plain language: the only potential “cure” would be to impose an all-powerful police state that enforces conformity throughout society and stifles all dissent or eccentricity. Um, well, thanks – but no thanks.
Author’s Note: Hat tip to Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner for his article that pointed me to the Fox and DeLateur study.