by SoMuchToGrok on 3/2/18, 2:11 PM with 90 comments
by Bernard_sha_256 on 3/2/18, 4:28 PM
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.
by SonicSoul on 3/2/18, 4:36 PM
“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
by 0003 on 3/2/18, 4:38 PM
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.
by welcome_dragon on 3/2/18, 4:22 PM
by ghufran_syed on 3/2/18, 4:54 PM
by mlechha on 3/2/18, 4:27 PM
by xg15 on 3/2/18, 4:50 PM
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.
by crescentfresh on 3/2/18, 4:45 PM
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?
by codemac on 3/2/18, 4:47 PM
This data seems to be missing what a lot of people would call "school shootings".
by patch_collector on 3/2/18, 5:51 PM
Reasonable additions to this might be adding a line for type of weapon used.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mwNeZ_KHL_nLd85eOeI-...
by dv_dt on 3/2/18, 5:21 PM
https://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-...
by bhldr on 3/2/18, 5:28 PM
by dmritard96 on 3/2/18, 5:13 PM
And most relevantly, the difference now is access to information anywhere/everywhere and in more detail/angle/opinion without a lot of latency.
by epanchin on 3/2/18, 5:01 PM
A drop in the number of deaths might just demonstrate an improvement in emergency medical procedures.
by Tech-Noir on 3/2/18, 5:04 PM
1996: 16 children and their teacher shot dead
1997-2018: 0 shot dead
by adammichaelc on 3/2/18, 4:32 PM
There is a clear upward-trend since the 60’s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_...