Welcome to Northwest Firearms
Join our community, sign up for free today!
Sign Up

Secret Service Report on Mass Attacks out now

So basically law abiding gun owners were not the problem.

 Nearly half were motivated by a personal grievance related to a workplace, domestic, or other issue.
 Over half had histories of criminal charges, mental health symptoms, and/or illicit substance use or abuse.  All had at least one significant stressor within the last five years, and over half had indications of financial instability in that timeframe.
 Over three-quarters made concerning communications and/or elicited concern from others prior to carrying out their attacks. On average, those who did elicit concern caused more harm than those who did not
 
Messages
1,537
Reactions
2,919
Yeah, bubblegum happens.

Just keep maintaining vigilance - I don't want big brother using statistics to keep me from protecting myself as these kind of particulars are harbingers of interference with the law abiding because they, our government overseers, just want to help......
 
Yeah, bubblegum happens.

Just keep maintaining vigilance - I don't want big brother using statistics to keep me from protecting myself as these kind of particulars are harbingers of interference with the law abiding because they, our government overseers, just want to help......
We are not given the true facts of what happens in situations/shootings/attacks by the newspapers or other media. Soon the event drops off the radar and we all go on, unaware of just who these people are. Whether you like it or not reports such as these, from reliable resources, can be helpful in some ways. I'll trust the Secret Service over Congress or other politicos who tell me what it is that they think i should know.
 
Messages
1,537
Reactions
2,919
Just to be persnickety: True facts?

As opposed to... false facts?

Something is either true or a fact.

Now, say something unkind about having this pointed out...grammar nazi or something along those lines. I won't be disappointed or in the least miffed if you do.

And yes, at times I too employ poor grammar, but this 'true facts' error is a pet peeve...
 
Just to be persnickety: True facts?

As opposed to... false facts?

Something is either true or a fact.

Now, say something unkind about having this pointed out...grammar nazi or something along those lines. I won't be disappointed or in the least miffed if you do.

And yes, at times I too employ poor grammar, but this 'true facts' error is a pet peeve...
Had no intention to be unkind. If I was, I apologize. I find this stuff interesting as it is something that one does not find by ordinary means. Major media = false facts (or just the lack of facts in general)
 

bbbass

Messages
8,494
Reactions
18,082
Just to be persnickety: True facts?

As opposed to... false facts?

Something is either true or a fact.
Well yes/no, false facts are what the media puts forth constantly!! They select particulars or make them up, and put them out as facts. Also they print or publish things prior to the actuality being determined... what they put forth prematurely as facts are not facts. So coining the term "false facts" doesn't bother me... and if there are "false facts" then, would there not be "true facts"? ;)
 

bbbass

Messages
8,494
Reactions
18,082
There's lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'm wary of any studies or reports because of the way data is gathered, grouped, analyzed, and reported... usually it's a pile of bull...

Not sure why the SS reported any of that... it doesn't seem like there is anything new, anything to learn from it that hasn't already been presented. And really, what good does it do to know that a certain percentage of mass shootings is done by disgruntled workers.... Duh!!! What can we do to prevent it from happening.... Nothing!!!!! People that give cues/clues is a different matter. Laws are changing, often laws we don't like (Red Flag laws) to catch some of these cases before they become statistics.

Perhaps it serves as a counter to some of the more misleading studies/reports. Certainly it's not a surprise to anybody here.... Regardless, the general public and our govt handlers will not learn a thing, will not change direction no matter who reports "true facts" of the issue.
 

Cavedweller

Messages
693
Reactions
1,612
Well yes/no, false facts are what the media puts forth constantly!! They select particulars or make them up, and put them out as facts. Also they print or publish things prior to the actuality being determined... what they put forth prematurely as facts are not facts. So coining the term "false facts" doesn't bother me... and if there are "false facts" then, would there not be "true facts"? ;)
There are no false facts. A fact is, by definition, "a thing that is known or proved to be true." Therefore, a fact cannot be false. What the media puts forth may be called false information, among other things, but not "false facts."
 

bbbass

Messages
8,494
Reactions
18,082
There are no false facts. A fact is, by definition, "a thing that is known or proved to be true." Therefore, a fact cannot be false. What the media puts forth may be called false information, among other things, but not "false facts."
Or it may be called false facts as it just was. I don't disagree on the literal rules, just the interpretation. Call it what you want, I'll call it what I want. I surely don't care what you call it, why bother to correct what I or others might call it? Is there something that drives one to do that? I might be able to create a few choice names for that tendency also.

Okay, I'll play... You know what really bugs me.... it's when people post sayings that are mis-attributed to famous people to give the saying/writing extra gravitas. Can we please talk about mis-attribution and the misuse of the word "gravitas" which is defined as: dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner, and has "weight" as one of it's synonyms, yet words have no weight, literally, so there's that. It bugs me. ;)

Ah, sweet thread drift! I love it!!!!!

Let's examine the adjective "solid". It means "firm, stable in shape, not liquid or fluid"... shouldn't they have added: "Not gaseous"? However in common understanding, what does solid mean? Well it means something you cannot put your fingers thru the exterior plane for one thing. Solid like concrete, or a tree, lumber, rock, etc. But are these things really "solid"? Nope! Elementary physics will "prove" that all these things are not only in a state of flux, as in glass, which we think of as solid, but the exterior actually responds to gravity and flows just a tiny bit, but also all materials are made up of molecules which are made up of bound atoms, having dimensional space between them, and the atoms themselves made of of a nucleus with one or more orbiting electrons having both the properties of dimensional space but also of movement? How do we know, has anyone ever seen an atom... nope, it's a construct. How then can one properly use the term solid, if it is based on a falsehood and not really true? Yet we do, don't we. We ALL do, and nobody criticizes and corrects. Because it is common usage, even tho technically incorrect, eh? ;););)

By the strict definition, there are no facts. Ever. Because we only "think" something is known. Many times later it is discovered and shown to be completely the opposite. Once the world was "known" to be flat... was it? Proven to be true.... nope... too many things were thought to be "proven" true that were indeed not so... nothing then is ever a fact because we live in a world of our own making and we are indeed fallible.

I'm sticking to what I said.... the media puts forth items as facts... they are not.... therefore, they are false, ie "false facts".... it's conceptual not literal. Get it? It's a coined term, just as many technically incorrect terms have become embedded in common usage. Sheesh!!!

Try thinking of "fake butter". It's a real thing, it's not fake, but it's not butter. By your "false information" ruling, it would have to be called "not butter" instead of fake butter. We can all try to claim the more accurate or even the more correct descriptor, but I never liked debate, and am not really good at it so I'll just ask... do you know what the meaning of "is" is??? ;):D
 
Last edited:

RicInOR

Messages
10,205
Reactions
21,593
No dot on Chicago, but we have this from HeyJackass.com

2017 Multi-victim Shootings
# of Victims # of Incidents # Killed
10 shot 1 2
9 shot 1 -
7 shot 3 2
6 shot 2 3
5 shot 6 5
4 shot 20 21
Hat Trick 95 52
2 shot 372 115



2019 Multi-victim Shootings
# of Victims # of Incidents # Killed
8 shot 1 3
7 shot 1 2
6 shot 2 0
5 shot 2 1
4 shot 6 1
Hat Trick 30 11
2 shot 141 50



The linked report map:

upload_2019-7-9_14-0-10.png
 
Or it may be called false facts as it just was. I don't disagree on the literal rules, just the interpretation. Call it what you want, I'll call it what I want. I surely don't care what you call it, why bother to correct what I or others might call it? Is there something that drives one to do that? I might be able to create a few choice names for that tendency also.

Okay, I'll play... You know what really bugs me.... it's when people post sayings that are mis-attributed to famous people to give the saying/writing extra gravitas. Can we please talk about mis-attribution and the misuse of the word "gravitas" which is defined as: dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner, and has "weight" as one of it's synonyms, yet words have no weight, literally, so there's that. It bugs me. ;)

Ah, sweet thread drift! I love it!!!!!

Let's examine the adjective "solid". It means "firm, stable in shape, not liquid or fluid"... shouldn't they have added: "Not gaseous"? However in common understanding, what does solid mean? Well it means something you cannot put your fingers thru the exterior plane for one thing. Solid like concrete, or a tree, lumber, rock, etc. But are these things really "solid"? Nope! Elementary physics will "prove" that all these things are not only in a state of flux, as in glass, which we think of as solid, but the exterior actually responds to gravity and flows just a tiny bit, but also all materials are made up of molecules which are made up of bound atoms, having dimensional space between them, and the atoms themselves made of of a nucleus with one or more orbiting electrons having both the properties of dimensional space but also of movement? How do we know, has anyone ever seen an atom... nope, it's a construct. How then can one properly use the term solid, if it is based on a falsehood and not really true? Yet we do, don't we. We ALL do, and nobody criticizes and corrects. Because it is common usage, even tho technically incorrect, eh? ;););)

By the strict definition, there are no facts. Ever. Because we only "think" something is known. Many times later it is discovered and shown to be completely the opposite. Once the world was "known" to be flat... was it? Proven to be true.... nope... too many things were thought to be "proven" true that were indeed not so... nothing then is ever a fact because we live in a world of our own making and we are indeed fallible.

I'm sticking to what I said.... the media puts forth items as facts... they are not.... therefore, they are false, ie "false facts".... it's conceptual not literal. Get it? It's a coined term, just as many technically incorrect terms have become embedded in common usage. Sheesh!!!

Try thinking of "fake butter". It's a real thing, it's not fake, but it's not butter. By your "false information" ruling, it would have to be called "not butter" instead of fake butter. We can all try to claim the more accurate or even the more correct descriptor, but I never liked debate, and am not really good at it so I'll just ask... do you know what the meaning of "is" is??? ;):D
#triggered
 

Ruger Rich

Messages
480
Reactions
989
I took a semester of statistical math in college, and that was a long time ago. Nonetheless I believe many of the principals are still applicable, and this was before any of the political finger pointing common today and certainly when I feel news was more objectively reported. Anyway, I was amazed that given a pile of raw data and by massaging in different ways you could drastically alter the outcome to favor most any point you wanted to make. I think this is very common place today. Too often I see news on a subject that seems inflated one way while the same happening is reported by others with a much different slant, likely also inflated to make their point. Finding the real, true story is a difficult thing to do. Pisses me off.
 
Messages
107
Reactions
153
@Heyjoe,

The Secret Service provides executive protection services. There is more to EP work than simply being armed in a suit next to your principal and keeping a supply of their meds on hand.

A really large part of EP has to do with gathering information about a number of things in order to generate a threat assessment for a given travel itinerary, locale, population, etc.

Secret Service, being a government entity has access to a lot of data and the means to compile, or have compiled for them a report like the one in this thread.

This report is not a complete assessment, but could be used as a component in generating an assessment which depending on why the assessment is being made may provide data germane to the other factors such as risk management, detail needs, security planning, communications and coordination with other groups, operational best practices, etc.

From a 2A rights perspective, it provides detailed data from a non-political and respected government entity that can be used to refute statistical distortions about firearm related incidents put forth by media outlets and other groups with political agendas that seek to erode 2A rights.

What would really be nice is to have them publish a further report with recommendations illustrating the functional practicalities of having armed people absent law enforcement as being beneficial in the thwarting/mitigating these types of threats, and highlighting the futility of currently popular forms of firearm restrictions.

Such a tactical assessment, widely published from a known professional, competent, impartial and dedicated government entity would be hard to ignore.
 

NEW CLASSIFIED ADS

LATEST REVIEWS

  • Klickitat County Firearms Training Facility
    4.00 star(s)
    Not really a range guy, as in I am 53 years old and today is the very first time I have been to an actual managed shooting range. Also, not a WA...
    • CRBMoA
  • Supporting Vendor Oregon Arms & Ammunition
    5.00 star(s)
    I've made several purchases here over the past few years and I've had a great experience every time. Prices are good, their staff is helpful, and...
    • Joe Link
  • Big Iron Armory
    5.00 star(s)
    It's great to have an LGS inside Portland Metro. Walt and Noah have put care into setting good prices and acquiring quality firearms and...
    • kr0ptkin
  • Supporting Vendor Lucky Sporting Goods
    5.00 star(s)
    Well I finally got around to taking pics of the Cerakoting work that Jeremy of Lucky Sports did for my wife and me about 3 weeks ago. We couldn't...
    • jg rider
  • Supporting Vendor Lucky Sporting Goods
    5.00 star(s)
    Here's more work that Jeremy did for me The first 3 pics are of an RIA frame that I had Cerakoted years back by an outfit in Molino. I had Jeremy...
    • jg rider

Staff online