I'd also like to add for the record that I'm not especially motivated to defend whites, or men, or white men, or any other group. I just feel like an accurate picture of what's going on is worthwhile to have. I do feel like theories are being thrown around without regard to what facts there are to back it up.
You're right, that does mix things up. I didn't take a look at much of the original statistics or what their operational definitions were. I simply took the stats Marm provided in post 38. For the record, I was quick to admit this was a rough estimate, and I'm glad you're breaking it down a bit more for me and everyone else here.One confounding factor is that many of the shootings counted were a form of Islamist terrorism. Some of them Mother Jones counted as white, some not.
I think we are in fact seeing a conglomeration of many phenomenon. One is motivated because of identification with an extreme vision of religious identity related to Islamist Ideology (which I distinguish from Islam itself), other aspects could be a mix of bunch of other things, including @marmatoni 's hypothesis. I also noticed, that some of these were personal incidents that ended up involving more people in the cross-fire...this included a significant black population of shooters. I think a single picture of what is going on oversimplifies things.
Yeah, I did a bit of fuzzy math, not knowing how many of the more recent shootings were statistically by whites compared to the decline in general (non-hispanic) white population. There's probably some calculus you could do here, but it seems like the assessment that there is a slight (probably less than 5 percent) over representation of whites seems fair.It does seem reasonable based on their sheet to assume that Latinos include White Hispanics, so your assumption of comparing 63% against Non-Hispanic White to the 70% among the shooters. The white population in general is declining so more recent years onward, Marm's argument gains strength with the increase in death count of these shootings. However, in the 2000s 23/35 shooters (63%) were white, which is right "on par" as you were saying. There was only one shooting in 2010 (by a black shooter), but in 2011, 2/3 were white (66%), the other was latino, in 2012, 5/7 shooters were white (about 71%), while the other two were Asian.
This is where my stats skills aren't up to par. What does variance indicate?However, whites may still be over-represented. To see if this difference is statistically significant, we would need to some analysis of the variance. I am not sure if @Jonny (or anyone else) wants to do it. The spreadsheet is downloadable ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...0RHhUdkE#gid=0 ). I have a day with enough tedium to look forward to, so I'm skipping it for now. But my intuition on scanning through the variance looking through the years is that there is significant variance in the percent of white non-hispanic shooters. I would say that the data shows at best a significance level at a 10%. I should also note that same intuition leads me to believe Asians are over-represented in this as well. I would doubt that the p-values would be any better than 10% (so just barely statistically significant, if that. Most people would want something like 5% or smaller). It is too bad socioeconomic data is not there.
Socioeconomic data would be nice to have.
Operational definitions really complicate things here.My own observations after sorting by race:
- Asian shooters were mostly workplace shooters, school shooters, and one in a spa another in at a civic organization
- Black shooters generally seemed to be either shooting people they knew(family, girlfriends) or authority figures (police, workplaces they were fired from, people denying something they wanted).
- Latino shooters had one arson (his apartment) with hostage taking, two incidents at a hotel, and one at a restaurant
- The one Native American shooter on the list killed his grandfather and girlfriend and then went shot many people on the reservation school
- The one Unknown race shooter on the list shot up his workplace because he was unhappy with his job assignment
- I couldn't really spot a pattern among the white shooters, but then again, I was just summarizing the summaries for some the other races.
Also, all of this has to be tempered with what would be considered a "mass" shooting spree could have a cut-off on the low-end for the number of fatalities (for instance). If we say a dozen or more is what constitutes it being "mass", then 7/10 (70%) where white (a couple in the 80s, a couple in the 90s, the rest after 2007).
If we limit to "school shootings" (the venues limited to schools), 8/12 were white (66%), 3/12 were Asian (25%).
If we combine both, to "mass school shootings", the 7/9 were white (78%), one was Asian, the other was Native American. I am pretty sure this is too small a sample size to say anything significant. But if people are remembering "mass school shootings", then they would be right in noticing that at the current moment white shooters are more common among shooters than in the general population. But ascribing it significance may be too much of an inference.
I'd personally describe a mass shooting as an event where at least 3 civilians (including military personnel who are not 'in theater' so to speak...basically if they are not engaged in war) are killed by a shooter with 'a degree of randomness' for no material gain (as oppessed to a robbery) and the intention to 'cause fear, alarm, panic, or to provide the shooter with a psychological 'high' or benefit of some sort.'
Admittedly, my definition is a little hard to classify, because what is 'a degree of randomness' and all the rest? That's another conversation... Number limits simplify things.
Curious about the asian representation. Do most 'mass school shootings' occur in college? Don't Asian's have higher than typical population in college?
I'd put forward the hypothesis that in any given population there is going to be a certain level of this sort of violence proportional to the amount of men, regardless of race. Could there be other factors? Absolutely. Including entitlement? Possibly.
Because of the scope of this issue (as in 60 some individuals over ~30 years in a population of ~314 million, not to say this hasn't effected everyone, but in terms of monitoring potential shooters), case by case seems like the way to go IMO.-------------
To be honest, after looking through the data, I think it best to just deal with potential threats case by case. If we see people fascinated by weapons and also showing signs of mental illness, it may time to take some precautionary measures.