Just finished this book "The Violence Project" which was an in -depth investigation into mass shootings. They got as much data as they could about mass shootings in the USA over the past 60+ years and put it into tables so that they could look for commonalities, trends, etc. to help understand mass shootings and how to stop them. They also reached out to a bunch of living mass shooters to try and get the story from the people who did it themselves.

https://www.amazon.com/Violence-Project-Stop-Shooting-Epidemic/dp/1419752960/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2SCNPVE7GGEA7&keywords=violence+project&qid=1690361227&sprefix=violence+projec%2Caps%2C224&sr=8-1

It covers a lot of statistical analysis and I think it gives a pretty good picture of the problem and some possible solutions. Hardcore gun rights people aren't going to be a fan of the book because it does make the argument that the ease of access to firearms as a part of the problem however it really isn't just another book saying guns are bad. It outlines a number of other non-gun related problems that seriously contribute to this problem to give a comprehensive view.
It mentions weaknesses in mental health care systems both in school and in general
It mentions weaknesses in the ability of law enforcement or authorities to respond to warning signs
It mentions weaknesses in teachers and employers failing to recognize that someone is in crisis.
It mentions how giving shooters such notoriety is making the problem worse. It mentioned how so many shooters were fans of previous shooters. It points out how the USA had a wave of serial killers when it became a hot news story but then died back down when the media stopped giving it so much attention.
It covers how many of the shooters go down deep dark rabbit holes on social media that feed conspiracy theories and encourage/praise shooters.

One of the main thing the book really tries to drive home is that we should see these shooters as being in a state of crisis. So many of the people who did these shootings had long histories of traumatic lives (abuse, sexual abuse, parent suicide, etc.) that were often prefaced by a recent significant incident like being fired or kicked out of school. It stresses recognizing people with that type of trauma and getting them help as someone going through a chaotic event in their life.

The book explains that these shootings can usually be viewed as a form of suicide since most plan or expect to die and talks about how they are deaths of despair when people stop finding meaning in life. This is a problem facing young men these days (that sentence is my addition to the topic)

Lots of interesting statistics, some we (gun rights advocates) would like, and some not so flattering to our position but facts are never usually all on one side or the other.
It didn't have any magic bullet to stopping mass shootings and there were a few angles I wished they went deeper into but overall I think the book is a good one to read about the topic. I think they tried to do an objective look at the issue.

BTW i pre-purchased this book based on some “pre-information” provided.  Unfortunately i haven’t had a chance to fully read it but you have done a “GREAT” job of the outline.  I actually attended a online session in the past by the team That made this book “The Violence Project”.  I was “impressed” of the research done.

I think this now reminds me to “READ THE BOOK”.

i think i work too much at times! 

Aloha!

Does the book mention anti depressants used by the active shooters?

Does the book mention anti depressants used by the active shooters?

booke

BTW i pre-purchased this book based on some “pre-information” provided.  Unfortunately i haven’t had a chance to fully read it but you have done a “GREAT” job of the outline.  I actually attended a online session in the past by the team That made this book “The Violence Project”.  I was “impressed” of the research done.

I think this now reminds me to “READ THE BOOK”.

i think i work too much at times! 

Aloha!

One thing I really liked is that they actually made a website where all of their data is made available for free. It is all in some sort of spreadsheet so anyone can compare hundreds of data points themselves to look for other possible trends or correlations.

https://www.theviolenceproject.org/

It actually took me a few months to finish it, I get distracted by many other things and sometimes video games is just more tempting than a book.

Does the book mention anti depressants used by the active shooters?

It does, let me see if I can find the specifics it mentioned....

::returns 5 minutes later::

I stand corrected, it lists psychiatric medication, not anti depressants specifically. 
23% of mass shooters took psychiatric medication. (They don't include terrorist type attacks in their study)
29% had previous counseling
20% had previous mental health hospitalization
27% had "thought disorder"
16% had "mood disorder"
6% had autism spectrum disorder
59% had any health history

"For the 60% of shooters whose childhoods we could find enough information, we found significant childhood trauma in over half the cases, or 55%; in the general population that number was more like 15%."

The question of psych medicine is a difficult one because it can be hard to tell if the medicine may be a contributing factor or whether merely another symptom. Additionally this is complicated by the fact that many of the psych medicines take time to help stabilize a person. So someone taken to a hospital for a mental health checkup may stay 1-2 days and get prescribed a medicine to help but the medicine can take a month to become effective. In the mean time they might stop taking the medicine or might do something in their unstable state.

I like one thing it pointed out :
"According to the Harvard Center for the Developing Child, the single most common factor for children who are resilient in the face of trauma is a stable, committed relationshuip with a supportive adult in their lives. "

...
It actually took me a few months to finish it, I get distracted by many other things and sometimes video games is just more tempting than a book.

That explains the spelling and grammar.

 

It does, let me see if I can find the specifics it mentioned....

::returns 5 minutes later::

I stand corrected, it lists psychiatric medication, not anti depressants specifically. 
23% of mass shooters took psychiatric medication. (They don't include terrorist type attacks in their study)
29% had previous counseling
20% had previous mental health hospitalization
27% had "thought disorder"
16% had "mood disorder"
6% had autism spectrum disorder
59% had any health history

"For the 60% of shooters whose childhoods we could find enough information, we found significant childhood trauma in over half the cases, or 55%; in the general population that number was more like 15%."

The question of psych medicine is a difficult one because it can be hard to tell if the medicine may be a contributing factor or whether merely another symptom. Additionally this is complicated by the fact that many of the psych medicines take time to help stabilize a person. So someone taken to a hospital for a mental health checkup may stay 1-2 days and get prescribed a medicine to help but the medicine can take a month to become effective. In the mean time they might stop taking the medicine or might do something in their unstable state.

I like one thing it pointed out :
"According to the Harvard Center for the Developing Child, the single most common factor for children who are resilient in the face of trauma is a stable, committed relationshuip with a supportive adult in their lives. "

Is mass shootings and active shootings different?

Many media covered active shooters have used anti depressants, so the 23% is low imo. Unless mass shootings includes chiraq then it makes sense. Which is why i asked. Im too busy now to look at the links.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Thanks for sharing and for the detailed synopsis of the book. 

Just curious... for the stats, does it have enough data to distinguish what may be criminal enterprise/ gang-related shooting vs active shooters?

That explains the spelling and grammar.

 

Kick your but at COD though...

Oh, I am sorry.... C.O.D.

Thanks for sharing and for the detailed synopsis of the book. 

Just curious... for the stats, does it have enough data to distinguish what may be criminal enterprise/ gang-related shooting vs active shooters?

I think they did a pretty thorough job. IIRC they collected something like 120 or 160 datapoints on shooters.

I don't think the book mentioned all the specifics of how they separated active shooters from terrorist attacks or gang shooters but they did give a sort of outline. It seemed they tried really hard to make sure they were only including this specific type of incident. I think they spent like 2 years gathering and analyzing the data.

Is mass shootings and active shootings different?

Many media covered active shooters have used anti depressants, so the 23% is low imo. Unless mass shootings includes chiraq then it makes sense. Which is why i asked. Im too busy now to look at the links.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Mass shootings usually refer to instances where 4 or more people are killed however this varies depending on source. Some define them differently which can make the number of mass shootings seem way more or way less. I believe the study used the standard of 4 or more people shot fatally as the criteria for their study.

Active shooters are generally the term used to refer to people who go on a shooting spree with the goal of killing a bunch of people. I don't think this one has any hard definition.

I don't recall other reports on what percentage of active shooters used anti depressants but I do know it has been raised as an area of concern. The book didn't mention any findings that would implicate medications as being a contributing factor. The only thing they covered was the issue of difficulty of getting treatment/medication and the part about many medications needing a month or so to settle in.

Kick your but at COD though...

Oh, I am sorry.... C.O.D.

"butt"

You're not as smart or funny as you seem to think.

Is mass shootings and active shootings different?

Many media covered active shooters have used anti depressants, so the 23% is low imo. Unless mass shootings includes chiraq then it makes sense. Which is why i asked. Im too busy now to look at the links.

Active shooter is an event -- a specific action that is happening in the present tense.

You might refer to an active shooter doing something in the past tense -- There was a school lockdown yesterday initiated by reports of an active shooter.

However, "Active Shooting" to describe an event like that is inappropriate.  Once the shooting has ended, it should be classified by the actual criteria in the aftermath.  if casualties rise to meet the definition of mass shooting, than that's how it should be referred to.  If it doesn't, then it might be a spree killing.  If nobody perished (except maybe the perp), then it might be an attempted mass shooting, a workplace shooting, a mall shooting, etc.

Nobody knows what the circumstances are when a gunman is in a building firing at seemingly random people.  It might turn out to be a domestic dispute or a disgruntled ex-employee.

Either way, the term "active shooter" or "active shooting" is ambiguous and describes any shooting (not just mass shooting) as it is occurring. 

Maybe we can call all public shootings that have ended "Inactive shootings?"