FBI Active Shooter Study

D

Double Naught Spy

New member
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/201...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

There is a lot of information to be taken from this. Aside from the results was a definition of 'active shooter,' something debated here previously...

Active shooter is a term used by law enforcement to describe a situation in which a shooting is in progress and an aspect of the crime may affect the protocols used in responding to and reacting at the scene of the incident. Unlike a defined crime, such as a murder or mass killing, the active aspect inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses.
Click to expand...

This study covers 160 incidents from 2000-2013, looking at shooters, victims, resolutions, etc. A list of the incidents with brief descriptions is given in Appendix A.

If you want to know how many were stopped by civilians (armed and unarmed), security or law enforcement, the information is in there. If you want to know how many shooters gave up, committed suicide on scene, suicide elsewhere, or are still at large (4, fyi), how many were female, it is in there. In the event descriptions, what the shooters were armed with (type of weapons) is given.

Overall, this seems to be a good synopsis of these events sense 2000.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't really agree with the notion that an 'active shooter' has to be one that can be engaged by both law enforcement and regular people. That implies that fast mass shootings are not active shooters because they may occur in an amount of time during which law enforcement does not have a chance to react. It would be my contention that the shooter is an active shooter so long as the shooter is continuing to shoot. The shooter may be active for a short period of time or long period.

From the article you cited, I found it interesting that this was stated...

The problem in conflating the two terms, Fox argues, is that an active shooter doesn’t necessarily have to kill anyone. And in fact, only 64 incidents involving “active shooters” met the federal government’s definition of a “mass killing,” in which three or more people were murdered in a single incident. In 31 incidents identified by the FBI report, no one was killed.
Click to expand...

Apparently, the criminologists think that an active shooter must me a mass murderer (which means that the active shooter has to be hitting and killing 3 or more human targets other than him/herself [note previously the FBI has had this number at 4 or more which apparently Fox got wrong http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder) which would imply that a crappy marksman shooter can't be an active shooter because he didn't kill enough people.

I don't see where not killing anyone makes a person NOT an active shooter. The title isn't "active killer" or "mass killer/murderer" but "active shooter." Here, its should be pointed out that some mass murderers don't achieve that title until after the incident was over anyway - the victims dying later.

The events are rare, no doubt. Even at 160 in 14 years, that isn't a very common thing.
 
Last edited:
The study specially avoided mentioning the why’s of rampage shooting. The increase in rampage shootings is due to media coverage. In the past, these severely depressed people would be more likely to kill themselves, but now, if they kill enough people, they will create massive media coverage, the world gets to know their complaints, and heck, there might even be a movie made about them. All they have to do is, be high killer, and do it in a way that shocks the nation.
 
The study specially avoided mentioning the why’s of rampage shooting.
Click to expand...
It probably wasn't their mandate in this case. They were asked to collate data, and they did so.

What we're left with is a whole bunch of numbers, but no insight into the causes.
 
The increase in rampage shootings is due to media coverage.
Click to expand...

That is one theory, overly simplified, and fails to account for all other factors. It assumes that notoriety is the motivation and that isn't (and likely can't be) substantiated from the available events.
 
I agree with DNS -- an active shooter is a shooter who is shooting. IMHO it doesn't matter who or what he's shooting at, and it doesn't matter if he's hitting or missing. He's pulling the trigger and making the gun go BANG.
 
Personally, I don't really agree with the notion that an 'active shooter' has to be one that can be engaged by both law enforcement and regular people.
Click to expand...

They're not saying that. They are counting incidents where the event (i.e the shooting) was over before police arrived.
 
They're not saying that. They are counting incidents where the event (i.e the shooting) was over before police arrived.
Click to expand...

You are suggesting that their definition is saying that an active shooter incident can occur without law enforcement presence? That sounds pretty silly. Aside from crimes against officers, pretty much any crime can occur without law enforcement present. So why would they not count incidents that occurred without law enforcement present? They do for every other types of crime.
 
I noticed that in every instance the killing of the uninvolved stopped when the shooter/s were confronted with return fire. Sometimes the confronting citizens, security, or LEOs were hit by the gunman before said gunman was killed or captured, but most of the time the gunman either shot him/herslf or gave up at that point.

Given that, it seems to me a reasonable conclusion that an active shooter should be engaged as quickly as possible. Is that an argument for more more tolerant laws for everyday carry? (such as in schools) I'm not trying to lead the argument, that's a serious question. As you may have guessed since I'm asking this on a gun board, I am biased in this. I think people, even teachers and others that are in traditionally "gun free" zones, should have the right to defend themselves. But knowing the police, and a lot of firepower, are on the way, I don't know if I would do anything but leave the area if I was able. Anyway, just asking the question, there isn't going to be an obvious right answer.
 
I was just going over the events listed. Apparently, they failed to consider the Tyler Courthouse (actually on the square, not in the courthouse) shooting where Mark Wilson came to the aid of law enforcement, exchanged shots with the shooter, hit the shooter, but was killed by the shooter.
 
I'd say it's bogus and anti-gun:

Just look at the Clackamas Oregon mall shooting - that's all you need to know:

On December 11, 2012, at 3:25 p.m., Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, armed with a rifle, began
shooting at people waiting to see Santa Claus in the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Happy
Valley, Oregon. Two people were killed; one was wounded. The shooter committed suicide
before police arrived.
Click to expand...

Why would the FBI omit the part about the REASON for the suicide was that the killer was confronted by a CCW-holder with a pistol and pointed it at him, after which he *immediately* committed suicide - as they ALL do whenever they meet the slightest armed resistance - they always suicide or surrender.

Active shooter is a term used by law enforcement to describe a situation in which a shooting is in progress and an aspect of the crime may affect the protocols used in responding to and reacting at the scene of the incident. Unlike a defined crime, such as a murder or mass killing,

Utter nonsense, as a matter of English language. 100% of shootings under that definition are "active shooter" scenarios, because 100% of shootings have at least 1 aspect "may" affect the protocols used in responding. That paragraph implies that not all "mass shootings" are "active shooter" incidents, but that is a lie. I guarantee that in 100% of mass killings, there is an "aspect" of the crime which "may" affect the protocols for responding. EVERY little minute detail of every crime responded TO, affects the protocols for responding. Tell me one mass shooting in history where non-standard protocols were used in the response?
 
Last edited:
My guess is that was omitted because there is quite some debate as to whether the CCW actually confronted the shooter. The story seemed to morph some with time. Originally, IIRC, the CCW (who happened to not just be a CCW, but a trained security guard. His own description as to the events were somewhat wishy washy, saying that the shooter "appeared to spot him." In other words, he doesn't know for sure.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security_guard_said_he_had_rob.html

Meli was first certified as an unarmed professional security guard by the Oregon Department of Public Safety, Standards and Training in 2010. Last June, he completed the additional 24 hours of training needed to be certified as an armed professional, including passing tests on shooting, safe gun handling and criminal and use-of-force laws, said Karen Evans, DPSST investigator.
Click to expand...

Not just your ordinary CCW, but a trained professional armed security guard.

At no point did Meli actually challenge or engage the shooter.
 
I don't see where not killing anyone makes a person NOT an active shooter. The title isn't "active killer" or "mass killer/murderer" but "active shooter." Here, its should be pointed out that some mass murderers don't achieve that title until after the incident was over anyway - the victims dying later.
Click to expand...


Fox (the criminologist) isn't saying that an "active shooter" must be a "mass killer/shooter" to be counted. He is pointing out the problem with the media headlines about the study which tend to claim that "mass shootings" are increasing. On page five of the study, the FBI says that it isn't about mass shootings or mass murders but you wouldn't know that from most of the initial media coverage. Almost all of the initial media coverage of the study claims that "FBI study shows mass shootings on the rise."

There is also criticism of the methodology for measuring "active shooting" incidents. From the Time link already posted:

Fox and Duwe are also critical of the report’s methodology. To collect many of the incidents, the FBI’s researchers often combed through news reports. But the term “active shooter” has only been in use within the last few years, Fox says, which may have skewed the numbers in favor of more recent events, possibly making it look as if shootings are rising...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top