John Lott -- "FBI's Bogus Report on Mass Shootings"

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sam1911

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
34,961
Location
Central PA
I didn't see this posted before:

http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/

It’s disheartening to see the FBI used to promote a political agenda,
...
The FBI counted 160 “mass” or “active” shootings in public places from 2000 to 2013. Worse, it said these attacks rose from just one in 2000 to 17 in 2013. Media outlets worldwide gave the “news” extensive coverage.
Too bad the study is remarkably shoddy — slicing the evidence to distort the results. In fact, mass public shootings have only risen ever so slightly over the last four decades.

While the FBI study discusses “mass shootings or killings,” its graphs were filled with cases that had nothing to do with mass killings. Of the 160 cases it counted, 32 involved a gun being fired without anyone being killed. Another 35 cases involved a single murder.
Click to expand...

So says Mr. Lott.

Here's his actual report: http://crimepreventionresearchcente...ysis-of-FBI-Mass-Public-Shootings-Report1.pdf
 
Hadn't seen this before, thanks for posting. It's a damn shame when the FBI is purposely manipulating data and statistics to fill a political agenda.
 
Why would the FBI have that agenda? They're usually anti-"party in office" aren't they?

Not saying they dont have an agenda.
 
The full report linked in OP is short and worth a read. This is not just changing definitions to add more numbers but systematically neglecting older events to skew results to recent dates.
 
The FBI is under the direction of the Justice Department I believe and that department is led by the most corrupt Attorney General in history......
Click to expand...

I believe the FBI is becoming more irrelevant with every passing decade. They weren't able to get a handle on the 9/11 attack and then they covered up a substantial connection to a Saudi family in Sarasota FL. after it happened. I think they are still trying to withhold documents from congress to protect that connection.

Then this report which is nothing more than a PR campaign to support the adm's agenda to pass more gun legislation.
 
The FBI has always been a political entity. Luckily for us when they release the commentary "mass shootings have risen" they also make the actual numbers publicly available. So other people can take a look and determine for themselves.
 
Anyone thinking of a bill to prohibit the FBI from researching gun-specific violence, same as we did for the CDC until recently?

TCB
 
Well I can't believe a .gov organization would try to mislead the American people. And I still remember getting jumped on when I said I didn't buy it when they say crime has been falling for several years now.while this doesn't prove me right, it is an example of why I don't trust them.
Unfortunately I'm not at all suprised.
 
FBI stats have always been known to be slippery things.

Except when handled by the special "gription" gloves of other governmental departments.

These FBI numbers get wielded like lasers to prove a point. I generally get to wondering who is behind either the study, its parameters or its later use when contemplating its effect upon me as a U.S. citizen.

What segments of crime get quietly included or excluded from any given study will out the bureaucratic villains/manipulators.

Todd.
 
A lot of reports like this are linked to funding. If a LE agency can make it look like there is a lot of crime it makes it easier to increase funding for them. If they make it look like crime is declining, which it is, politicians are more likely to cut funding to those agencies.
 
fallout mike said:
No way. They would never intentionally try and deceive us. Take off the tin foil hats!
Click to expand...
It's not about deceiving - it's about swaying, steering, even re-directing. I don't believe they deliberately alter facts, only parameters of studies and how the results are presented.
 
It's not about deceiving - it's about swaying, steering, even re-directing. I don't believe they deliberately alter facts, only parameters of studies and how the results are presented.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you believe that?
 
rogerjames said:
You obviously didn't read the link in the OP.
Click to expand...
If you mean the NY POst, then yes, "You(I) obviously didn't read the link in the OP."

The other represents a point of view of the CPRC... a point of view. I generally agree with it but don't side with interpreting the FBI as "lying".
 
Wow, it is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think it would be hugely helpful if everybody agreed upon standard terminology and definitions, and then stuck to them, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It would also be helpful if these analysts (on both sides) understood the difference between correlations and causations.
 
That FBI report is easy to find online. 47 pages long. I looked it over a couple of months ago and don't remember anything standing out as bogus.
 
I looked it over a couple of months ago and don't remember anything standing out as bogus.
Click to expand...
Did the copy you read have the same numbers/statistics in it that Mr. Lott is talking about?

Yes? No? If so, how would you know if they were bogus or not?
 
Like I said, it's 47 pages long. Lots of numbers. It reports 160 active shooter incidents. It states the definition of active shooter that they are using. It does not interchange the terms 'active shooter' and 'mass murder.' It gives a synopsis of each of the 160 incidents.
Anyone interested can look at the actual report. You don't have to rely on one writer's opinion.
 
Don't all shooting involve an "active shooter"?

Or an "active shooter" is someone still shooting while LEO arrive?

Yep, I didn't bother really reading anything. I did skim the word document though.

The letters "FBI" automatically made me think Herber Hoover, a man of honor and inegrity.

Just kidding on that last part.

Anyways, not surprised at all.

Cool story: a few years ago I had 2 FBI goons come knocking on my door asking about the murder of one of their comrades. Of course I knew nothing about it, but they kept insisting I must have seen or heard something because my cellphones signal was near the location. They left, never to be heard from again.
 
I have not read John Lott's "FBI's Bogus Report on Mass Shootings".
I did spend a little time on the FBI's A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013.
I think that's the report Mr. Lott is referring to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top