New FBI data shows number of mass shootings 10-times lower than media reports
From the The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project
According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.
The FBI found that while active shootings are increasing, they are not nearly the threat the Gun Violence Archive and the media would have you believe.
Here’s a breakdown of the FBI’s data for “active” shootings over the past five years:
Here’s the number of “mass” shootings for the same timeframe from the Gun Violence Archive:
2020: No data posted
The difference lies in the definitions.
According to their new report titled: “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2020,” the FBI defines active shootings as:
Shootings in public places
Shootings occurring at more than one location
Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act
Shootings resulting in a mass killing
Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter
Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims
Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects
Shootings were excluded from the FBI’s list if they were the result of:
Contained residential or domestic disputes
Controlled barricade/hostage situations
Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act
An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril
By comparison, the Gun Violence Archive, or GVA, excludes nothing, even if the shooting is gang or drug related – the two main causes of most violence in the country today.
According to their website, the “GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter.”
“GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.
GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident,” their website states.
While this practice may be fine for GVA’s statistical purposes, their definition is almost never cited or explained in news accounts of mass shootings, and the public is intentionally deceived.
Of the active shootings that occurred last year, the FBI found that “none of the total 40 incidents occurred in educational environments, health care facilities, or houses of worship.”
Twenty-four of the shooters were arrested. Six were killed. Seven committed suicide, and five remain at large.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean it to be constructive.
Please think about your headline and a little math.
If something is 1 time something else, that's considered a 100% of that thing.
Think about cash. If you start with $1 and you've got 1 time (100%) less than when started, you've got $0 left. If you've got 2 times less than when you started, you've got $2 LESS than when started, so you actually OWE $1. If you've got 10 times less, you OWE $9.
So, if the media reported that there were 10 mass shootings but the number was really 1 time ( 100% ) less, then that would mean there were NO mass shootings. Since we're talking about events, you can't actually have fewer occurrences of the events than all the events claimed.
With the words in the headline, that can only mean we've started bringing people back from the dead. I don't know if this wording is part of the 'new math' but I've noticed it being used in many places - and it's not good to propagate mistakes. We COULD say, the public is unintentionally led astray.
If I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to know about the new concept.
Well said, Lee.