PDA

View Full Version : Fact Check: Washington Post Spreads Debunked Mass-Shooting Stats ..



RonW
12-05-2015, 09:35 PM
Well read it and weep, even mother jones is calling them out.......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When The New York Times is more honest about gun violence than you, that’s when your integrity has gone off the deep end, which is where the leftwing Washington Post has practiced its dishonest tradecraft for quite some time now. But in the fascist pursuit of restricting your Second Amendment civil rights, the Post is desperately furthering a Big Lie about mass-shootings that even the New York Times refuses to spread.

Using biased sources and a definition of “mass shooting” that is so wide open it includes gang fights and family disputes, the Post’s Philip Bump re-published this Saturday: “The San Bernardino shooting continues a disturbing trend: No week since 2013 without a mass shooting.”

That’s not even close to the truth. The truth is four — four mass-shootings this year. Still four too many but a far cry from Bump’s manufactured number.

Bump is not practicing journalism, he is practicing propaganda — propaganda so noxious and dishonest even the gun-grabbers at The New York Times felt the need to debunk it:

On Wednesday, a Washington Post article announced that “The San Bernardino shooting is the second mass shooting today and the 355th this year.” Vox, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, this newspaper and others reported similar statistics. Grim details from the church in Charleston, a college classroom in Oregon and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado are still fresh, but you could be forgiven for wondering how you missed more than 300 other such attacks in 2015.

At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.

Bump isn’t only trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, he is playing Palace Guard for a White House desperate to distract from the fact that they have failed to keep the homefront safe.

Hey, maybe Bump’s colleague, Chris Cillizza, can write another one of those columns crybabying over how terrible it is that the American public no longer trusts the media. "

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/05/fact-check-washington-post-spreads-debunked-mass-shooting-stats/

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 09:42 PM
Yup, tell that to the FBI and others.

Mass murder is the act of murdering a large number of people, typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time. According to the FBI, for individuals, mass murder is defined as the person murdering four or more persons during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more. With exceptions, many acts of mass murder end with the death of the perpetrator, whether by direct suicide or being killed by law enforcement. A mass murder differs from a spree killing, in that it may be committed by individuals or organizations, whereas a spree killing is committed by one or two individuals. In terms of individuals, mass murderers are different from spree killers, who kill at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders and are not defined by the number of victims, and serial killers, who may kill numerous people over long periods of time. Mass murder is also not synonymous with genocide because genocide requires distinct elements. Mass murder may also be defined as the intentional and indiscriminate murder of a large number of people by government agents. Examples are the shooting of unarmed protestors, the carpet bombing of cities, the lobbing of grenades into prison cells, and the random execution of civilians. The largest mass killings in history have been governmental attempts to exterminate entire groups or communities of people, often on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Some of these mass murders have been found to be genocides and others to be crimes against humanity, but often such crimes have led to few or no convictions of any type.

Another FAIL!

If anything, Beithfart knows its audience. It can take a tidbit of semi factual information and turn it into a lbs. of misinformation.

Dan McCosh
12-06-2015, 12:02 PM
If you define mass shooting as shooting into a crowd of people, and hitting many of them, there have been as many as three in a couple of months in Detroit alone last summer, where about three are shot daily, on an average.

Sky Blue
12-06-2015, 12:10 PM
Add to that the stifling of free speech on college campuses and elsewhere and Mr. Obama's suspension of due process rights of suspected terrorists that also happen to be citizens, and it is difficult to see any individual civil right that is not under assault by the political left right now. It will be a good and happy day when these people are brought to heel and to hand.

Gerarddm
12-06-2015, 12:11 PM
More guns = more killing.

S.V. Airlie
12-06-2015, 12:17 PM
Add to that the stifling of free speech on college campuses and elsewhere and Mr. Obama's suspension of due process rights of suspected terrorists that also happen to be citizens, and it is difficult to see any individual civil right that is not under assault by the political left right now. It will be a good and happy day when these people are brought to heel and to hand.Examples? And Due process of law! I look at it this way, if a citizen goes to the ME to fight with ISIS he forfeits his US citizenship. If he ends up being killed fighting for ISIS against us, he needs to accept the fact he's probably gonna die. Show me a situation where he is intentionally killed, selected to be killed, in a bombing exsercize? If a citizen leaves ISIS and returns to the US to face the music so to speak, due process will be instituted.

PS, is a citizen who committed a crime in France subject to "due process" in the US?

Norman Bernstein
12-06-2015, 01:55 PM
.
At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982..

You can always change a statistic, by redefining it. The writer of that piece, and Mother Jones Magazine, can redefine what a 'mas shooting' is, all they want... but the commonly accepted definition, as well as the definition used by the FBI, is the shooting of four people or more, and by that definition, it's been more than one a day.

The list is available on the Internet, if you'd care to look.....

...but I doubt you care, since Breitbart has 'spoken' :)

David W Pratt
12-06-2015, 02:14 PM
More guns does not (?do not) necessarily equal more killing. Here in VT the rate of gun ownership is about 40%. that is far higher than CA, but CA has a higher rate of gun related violence

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2015, 02:18 PM
More guns does not (?do not) necessarily equal more killing. Here in VT the rate of gun ownership is about 40%. that is far higher than CA, but CA has a higher rate of gun related violence

It might have more to do with the TYPE (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bullets-694670-pipe-version.html) of guns

S.V. Airlie
12-06-2015, 02:22 PM
Yup, people usually hunt game with an assault weapons.:)

ljb5
12-06-2015, 02:51 PM
San Bernadino, CA. (14 dead)

Colorado Springs, Planned Parenthood (3 dead, nine wounded)

Colorado Springs, Halloween shooting (4 dead)

Roseberg, OR, (10 dead)

Charleston, SC, Church Shooting (9 dead).

Lafayette Movie Theater shooting, (2 dead, 9 injured).

So, just off the top of my head I can think of more shootings than Breitbart.

And those are just the ones that got a lot of press coverage. I'm sure there were many I didn't hear about.

ljb5
12-06-2015, 03:05 PM
Wrong.



NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html)

The link you provided is for the statutory definition of 'mass killing" which is not necessarily the same as a mass shooting.

And that only pertains to when the federal government frees up certain resources to assist in the investigation..... it's not an official declaration that a shooting didn't occur or doesn't count.

Peerie Maa
12-06-2015, 03:17 PM
PS, is a citizen who committed a crime in France subject to "due process" in the US?

Apparently so.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a415ebe-9983-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html

ljb5
12-06-2015, 03:50 PM
My hunch is there is no "statutory definition" of mass shooting. I think it's simply a term created by the press, likely Mother Jones.

The press's job is to describe the events that happen in reality.

Since there really are mass shootings in reality, we cannot really fault the press for reporting about them.

Just off the top of my head, I was able to think of a half dozen mass shootings. You can tell me they don't fit your definition, but you cannot tell me they didn't happen.

So if you've got a definition that doesn't sufficiently comport with reality, I think you need to revise your definition, rather than deny reality.

ljb5
12-06-2015, 03:58 PM
This Congressional Research Service report from 2013 defines mass shooting as 4 killed, not including the shooter, with targets chosen "somewhat indiscriminately."

PDF (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43004.pdf)

also, not associated with a terrorist ideology, so San Bernadino probably doesn't count....

And yet, it happened.

C. Ross
12-06-2015, 04:01 PM
Again, it's worthwhile to actually bother to read the original op-ed.

It doesn't say what Breitbart of RonW want it to say.

But let's take the most "optimistic" reading. We've had "only" FOUR mass shootings this year. Seventy-three since 1982 - an average of 2.2 per year. And, you know, thank God those statistics don't include "mass murders that stemmed from robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse in private homes" Because those are just little dust-ups, nothing to be concerned about.

The gun fetishists must have a dawning awakening, deep down, that they CAUSED this problem. Criminals and terrorists have an unlimited supply of military grade weapons and high capacity ammunition BECAUSE the gun community has built a vast distribution mechanism with no material limitation or regulation. They have ASSURED that the terrorists and gang bangers and lunatics have a ready supply of anything they want.

Every gun freak who opposes even the most reasonable form of licensure, background check and limitation on military-style weapons is a co-conspirator in murder, crime, and terrorism.

----------------------

The original oped:

On Wednesday, a Washington Post article announced that “The San Bernardino shooting is the second mass shooting today and the 355th this year.” Vox, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, this newspaper and others reported similar statistics. Grim details from the church in Charleston, a college classroom in Oregon and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado are still fresh, but you could be forgiven for wondering how you missed more than 300 other such attacks in 2015. At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.

What explains the vastly different count? The answer is that there is no official definition for “mass shooting.” Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight</a> in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shooting (https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/2015massshootings#wiki_number_354.3A_12.2F2.2F2015 .2C_unknown.2C_1_dead_3_injured.2C_savannah.2C_ga) on a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.

While all the victims are important, conflating those many other crimes with indiscriminate slaughter in public venues obscures our understanding of this complicated and growing problem (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-rising-harvard). Everyone is desperate to know why these attacks happen and how we might stop them — and we can’t know, unless we collect and focus on useful data that filter out the noise.

For at least the past decade, the F.B.I. regarded a mass shooting as a single attack in which four or more victims were killed. (In 2013, a mandate from President Obama for further study of the problem lowered that threshold to three victims (https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ265/PLAW-112publ265.pdf) killed.) When we began compiling our database in 2012, we used that criteria of four or more killed in public attacks, but excluded mass murders that stemmed from robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse in private homes. Our goal with this relatively narrow set of parameters was to better understand the seemingly indiscriminate attacks that have increased in recent years, whether in movie theaters, elementary schools or office parks.

The statistics now being highlighted in the news come primarily fromshootingtracker.com (http://shootingtracker.com/), a website built by members of a Reddit forum supporting gun control called GunsAreCool. That site aggregates news stories about shooting incidents — of any kind — in which four or more people are reported to have been either injured or killed.
It’s not clear why the Redditors use this much broader criteria. The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.” It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.
There is value in collecting those stories as a blunt measure of gun violence involving multiple victims. But as those numbers gain traction in the news media, they distort our understanding. According to our research at Mother Jones — subsequently corroborated by the F.B.I. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013) — the more narrowly defined mass shootings have grown more frequent, and overwhelmingly involve legally obtained firearms. Experts in the emerging field of threat assessment (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/mass-shootings-threat-assessment-shooter-fbi-columbine) believe that this is a unique phenomenon that must be understood on its own.
One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented (http://www.wired.com/2015/10/america-still-doesnt-good-data-guns/) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?

ljb5
12-06-2015, 04:01 PM
Has someone suggested the shootings in San Berdoo didn't happen?

No... just that they don't "count."

It's an odd position to admit something happened, but argue that it doesn't count.

But hey, dude, that's your position, not mine.

I'm more in the reality-based community. When something actually happens, I think it's worth noting and counting. I don't go around making up reasons to pretend otherwise.

ljb5
12-06-2015, 04:10 PM
Would you like to point to where I argue that "it doesn't count."

Actually, I'd prefer to leave it up to you to define your position. But if you've done a poor job of defining it, that's on you.

In post #18, you provided a definition that would exclude the San Bernadino shooting from being counted. If you didn't mean to apply that definition, you should probably make that clear.

S.V. Airlie
12-06-2015, 04:16 PM
Go play with yourself EllJay.HaHa, that will teach you ljb.

C. Ross
12-06-2015, 04:17 PM
Yes . . . I quoted it in post #13.

Yes, I did see that, and should have noted it.

ljb5
12-06-2015, 04:18 PM
Go play with yourself EllJay.

Real mature, Donn.

But seriously, if you're using a definition (or advocating for the use of a definition) that excludes an event that we generally agree should not be excluded, then your definition is too narrow and does not do a good job of reflecting the reality that we all see.

So you must choose: either you stick to your guns and stand by your overly-narrow definition, or you recognize the reality that everyone sees and expand your definition. You can't have it both ways.

Or, I suppose, you could elect for a third option, which is to deny that you ever took any position and start trying to insult me.... but honestly, I don't see how a mature, intelligent person would go down that path.

bobbys
12-06-2015, 04:29 PM
No... just that they don't "count."

It's an odd position to admit something happened, but argue that it doesn't count.

But hey, dude, that's your position, not mine.

I'm more in the reality-based community. When something actually happens, I think it's worth noting and counting. I don't go around making up reasons to pretend otherwise.
.

True ,I know you keep a watchful eye on Twitter accounts to seperate the good from the bad.

ljb5
12-06-2015, 04:38 PM
Note: Mother doesn't specify how the FBI established the baseline, or provide a cite [sic].

"Cite" is a verb. You meant "citation."

You sure have a lot of petards upon which to hoist yourself.

==============================================

Now look, I'm not denying that the definition exists, merely pointing out that it doesn't seem to be a very good definition because it doesn't fit or allow the reality that we all see.

The extent to which you want to tie your position to that definition is entirely up to you.

ljb5
12-06-2015, 04:50 PM
Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cite#Usage_note)

Cite

Etymology 2

From the first syllable of citation (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/citation#English). Analogous to quote (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quote#English), from quotation (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quotation#English).
Noun

cite ‎(plural cites (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cites#English))


(informal (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#informal)) a citation (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/citation) We used the number of cites as a rough measure of the significance of each published paper.



Well sheesh, if you're going to use wiktionary as a source, you owe me an apology for your post #31 because wikitionary says my use of real is acceptable.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/real#Adverb

But hey... that's your petard, not mine.

Have you ever considered putting your petard away? You do get hoist upon it so often.

David G
12-06-2015, 05:06 PM
See... now THAT'S why Donn so seldom comes out to play any more. People like YOU keep pointing out the inconsistencies, absurdities, and general lack of truthiness of so many of his comments. In the interests of inclusiveness, and Bilge Brotherhood... don't you think you could, in recognition of past contributions, cut him some slack at this stage of his life and career here? It would be the kind thing to do.

The Bigfella
12-06-2015, 05:57 PM
Are LJ and The Uniqque One looking to take over Philly and Jamie's fish-slapping title?

David G
12-06-2015, 06:34 PM
Wasn't sure where to put this, so I'll just leave it here. In case anyone has any use for it... over on another thread or something --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12002871_10153692151793982_7287982704709373963_n.j pg?oh=77a127f168135a1e9582f40085e55980&oe=56EC695D

S.V. Airlie
12-06-2015, 06:51 PM
Yes, but your head is always in the way.Donn is always proficient about spewing out "snark". when he can't respond in a nice manner when he doesn't have anything else to add.. Don't know why I, or anyone else, has been banned for being consistently rude. Nothing like calling the kettle black Donn. Good show!

bobbys
12-06-2015, 10:32 PM
Wasn't sure where to put this, so I'll just leave it here. In case anyone has any use for it... over on another thread or something --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12002871_10153692151793982_7287982704709373963_n.j pg?oh=77a127f168135a1e9582f40085e55980&oe=56EC695D
.

Will there be a test on this?

Glen Longino
12-06-2015, 10:36 PM
.

Will there be a test on this?

That was a test!
You failed!

bobbys
12-06-2015, 11:01 PM
That was a test!
You failed!
.

Well the nuns did put me in the back of the class wit the dumb kids..

Don't tink Im dumb though I observed the kids that had dads that were roofers had all the good toys.

Daniel Noyes
12-06-2015, 11:12 PM
It might have more to do with the TYPE (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bullets-694670-pipe-version.html) of guns

so if Vermonters woke up 2 morrow and all their guns had magically been replaced with assault weapons the Vermont murder rate would suddenly jump to that of California???

more like it's the TYPE (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bullets-694670-pipe-version.html) of People... after all it is people who kill people not guns!

Jimmy W
12-06-2015, 11:31 PM
If you kill other folks in a house or are a gang member, you can kill as many as you like without being a mass murderer according to some folks definition.

RonW
12-07-2015, 01:34 AM
C.Ross , post # 22 says -
The gun fetishists must have a dawning awakening, deep down, that they CAUSED this problem. Criminals and terrorists have an unlimited supply of military grade weapons and high capacity ammunition BECAUSE the gun community has built a vast distribution mechanism with no material limitation or regulation. They have ASSURED that the terrorists and gang bangers and lunatics have a ready supply of anything they want.

Every gun freak who opposes even the most reasonable form of licensure, background check and limitation on military-style weapons is a co-conspirator in murder, crime, and terrorism.

Amazing, simply amazing. You have done a very good job of summing up the democratic view point of who and what is to blame for criminal and terrorists activity.

Terrorists spend a lot of time in planning and preparing for the event as well as seeing to their needs as to equipment needed for the act. They will obtain their equipment one way or another at all costs to achieve their end goals.

Criminals are desperate to enrich themselves, and will use what ever means available regardless of the laws against, or the ethics and morality of the crime.

Whatever happened to the personal responsibility of the persons committing the crime ?

Laws can only deter, they can not prevent.

And your answer is to accuse gun owners who won't submit to your list of demands as being co-conspirators. What a crock of uninformed liberal krapt.

Phillip Allen
12-07-2015, 02:06 AM
so if Vermonters woke up 2 morrow and all their guns had magically been replaced with assault weapons the Vermont murder rate would suddenly jump to that of California???

more like it's the TYPE (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bullets-694670-pipe-version.html) of People... after all it is people who kill people not guns!

he's not lying... he actually believes that without question