Stopping Active Shooters (mass murders that is)

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Here in Seattle the criminals are battling every night shooting and killing each other and innocent bystanders, this was not the case 20 years ago.

I failed to state that as my experience. What is note worthy is the brazen acts of violence against both the police and civilians. Quite disturbing.

Mr. Serna

I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.

Seattle WA Murder/Homicide Rate 1999-2018

Interactive chart of the Seattle, Washington murder rate (i.e. the number of homicides per 100,000 population) from 1999 to 2018.

www.macrotrends.net

Violent crime and assault are pretty much where they were 20 years ago.

 

[lklawson]

I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.

Seattle WA Murder/Homicide Rate 1999-2018

Interactive chart of the Seattle, Washington murder rate (i.e. the number of homicides per 100,000 population) from 1999 to 2018.

www.macrotrends.net

Violent crime and assault are pretty much where they were 20 years ago.

Violent crime in the U.S. over all has been trending downward for somewhere around the last 3 decades; murder, assault, everything. "For some reason" it took a serious uptick in 2021.

However, it looks like it's going to be going down again. Probably not immediately below 2020 levels but it looks like it's trending back down from that blip. We'll see what this summer holds, but I'm betting we don't see the same mass violence this summer that we did last.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[hoshin1600]

Lies, dam lies and statistics.
People need to be really careful reading numbers and statistics and then drawing conclusions. Homicide rates are not the same as violent crime rates. Homicide rates have gone down over the years, that is true but this is predominantly due to improvements in medicine and hospital care. The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.
Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.
Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.

Untrue, based on the link from above. Violent crime in the US was at 523 crimes per 100,000 people in the year 1999, with a fairly steady decrease, and reached 381 crimes per 100k people in 2018 (last year it takes). For just aggravated assault, those numbers went from 334 in 1999 with again a fairly steady decrease until it reached 247 crimes per 100k in 2018.

Admittedly, it does not mention specifically aggravated assault with a firearm, so I had to look elsewhere for that. I found two things, one chart going over the rate of nonfatal firearm victimization from 1993 to 2011, where it decreased from 7.3 per 1000 people in 93, to 1.8 per 1000 people in 2011.
The second one was a flat number of in-patient hospital visits for firearms from 2000 to 2015, just to get a bit closer to us. The number there stayed pretty much the same, hovering between 30,000 and 35,000 people each year, which indicates that the percentage there also went down a tiny bit since the population had a 14% increase during that time.

Sadly, I wasn't able to find anything more recent regarding nonfatal, violent gun crimes. Everything else was either talking about fatal crimes, comparing crime rates between the US and other countries, nonviolent gun crimes, or school shootings. Nothing else about the specific type of gun crime you referenced, by year within the US. If you had a source for where you found that those numbers have increased I'd be interested, as what I found does not align with that (unless they've really increased the last 7 years).

 

[lklawson]

Lies, dam lies and statistics.

That only matters if you actually look at the statistics instead of assuming them.

People need to be really careful reading numbers and statistics and then drawing conclusions.

People need to be really careful to actually find numbers and statistics first. You didn't.

Homicide rates are not the same as violent crime rates. Homicide rates have gone down over the years, that is true but this is predominantly due to improvements in medicine and hospital care. The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.

I didn't write "homicides." I wrote "violent crime." And violent crime, over all, as a class, has been declining for 30 years. Medical aid has nothing to do with it.

Reported violent crime rate in the U.S. 2023 | Statista

In 2023, the violent crime rate in the United States was 363.8 cases per 100,000 of the population.

www.statista.com

Violent Crime Drops Again

Violent Crime Drops Again by Kirk Lawson Violent Crime has dropped again, but you probably did not hear about it. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) shows that Violent Crime rates have fallen yet again. This time, they dropped 3.9% in 2018, continuing a downward slide. On the "10 year...

www.hipointfirearmsforums.com

Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.

Sorry, but your conclusion is not based on actual data.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[mograph]

Here's what Pew has to say:

1. slightly over half of US gun deaths (54%) are suicides
2. a record number of Americans (an absolute number) died of gun-related injuries (murders + suicides) in 2020
3. the rate (absolute/population) has fallen (since the absolute number has risen, that means that the population has risen faster)
4. 79% of murder involve a gun, 53% of suicides involved a gun
5. the US gun fatality rate (number/pop) is high among developed countries (e.g. five times that of Canada), but not as high as in some Latin American countries
6. the number of "active shooting" (definition below) incidents in the the US has been increasing
   
   
   

   What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

   More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the CDC.

   www.pewresearch.org

 

[MR. SERNA]

I guess it depends on where in Seattle you l

I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.

Seattle WA Murder/Homicide Rate 1999-2018

Interactive chart of the Seattle, Washington murder rate (i.e. the number of homicides per 100,000 population) from 1999 to 2018.

www.macrotrends.net

Violent crime and assault are pretty much where they were 20 years ago.

And it worse now. The current data reflects record numbers.

So sad, Seattle is such a beautiful place.

Mr. Serna

 

[hoshin1600]

People need to be really careful to actually find numbers and statistics first. You didn't.

Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
My point was... people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.

 

[MR. SERNA]

Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
My point was... people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.

I agree.

Anytime you are dealing with data one needs to break it down and extrapolate the raw data into data you can use depending on your argument. (Argument means debate)
The data become real when you line up gang warfare, accidental, legal self defense, terrorist, random and so on. You need to do this in order for your argument to have merit.

Otherwise you do not have a viable argument, and you are then parroting the news. Which is no longer news it is broadcasting because they do not clarify or retract. The news follows political diatribe and present it as facts and data.

Mr. Serna

 

[hoshin1600]

Moving back to the op and the article. While I do not agree mass shooting perpetrators are easy to handle, I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up. We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors. This would also take all levels of government and the public at large too. In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.

 

[O'Malley]

Stumbled upon this video, I'll post it here since the thread on kids getting shot is closed. Can't comment on whether everything's correct as I don't practice US law.

I remember reading here that the solution to school shootings is to tell police (including the SRO) to engage the armed murderer. However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene:

 

[drop bear]

Stumbled upon this video, I'll post it here since the thread on kids getting shot is closed. Can't comment on whether everything's correct as I don't practice US law.

I remember reading here that the solution to school shootings is to tell police (including the SRO) to engage the armed murderer. However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene:

Do you guys have this whole right to a safe work environment thing?

 

[O'Malley]

Do you guys have this whole right to a safe work environment thing?

Don't know. I'm in Europe and we have very different laws and traditions compared to the US. For example, it's taken for granted that the state can be sued for failing to protect individuals threatened by third parties.

But from what I understand, it can't be done in the US, as confirmed by a 2020 ruling on one of the recent shootings.

 

[lklawson]

Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
My point was... people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.

Then perhaps I misunderstood what you were communicating.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up. We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors.

Well, yes. The paradigm shifted with Columbine from a stand-off with hostages to something "new." That was 23 years ago now and it seems that the message still hasn't reached some places.

In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.

This sentiment has been growing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene

SCOTUS has ruled, quite definitively, multiple times now, that the police have no legal requirement to protect any one in particular. Their obligation is to the public in general.

That said, the public seems to have zero tolerance for cops waiting around in this situation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Buka]

Moving back to the op and the article. While I do not agree mass shooting perpetrators are easy to handle, I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up. We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors. This would also take all levels of government and the public at large too. In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.

All of the police officers in Uvalde who waited while children were slaughtered are members of a unique group. Devout cowards. May karma get them all.

 

[drop bear]

SCOTUS has ruled, quite definitively, multiple times now, that the police have no legal requirement to protect any one in particular. Their obligation is to the public in general.

That said, the public seems to have zero tolerance for cops waiting around in this situation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Do any first responders have this obligation?

 

[lklawson]

Do any first responders have this obligation?

I don't recall any cases for Fire/EMS but I doubt it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Dirty Dog]

Do any first responders have this obligation?

No.