IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v17y2020i1p40-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Importance of Analyzing Public Mass Shooters Separately from Other Attackers When Estimating the Prevalence of Their Behavior Worldwide

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Lankford

Abstract

Public mass shootings have traumatized Americans for more than fifty years, while similar incidents seem to have been extremely rare in other countries. Several years ago, I conducted a cross-national study which found that the United States had 30.8 percent of all public mass shooters from 1966–2012, despite having less than five percent of the world’s population (Lankford 2016). Unfortunately, John Lott and Carlisle Moody (2019; 2020) have created a great deal of confusion with their recent claims, which grossly underestimate the United States’ global share of public mass shootings. Here I explain: (1) why analyzing public mass shootings and other types of attacks as a single form of violence is as flawed as claiming that tornadoes and hurricanes are a single type of storm; (2) how readers can sort Lott and Moody’s dataset to more accurately estimate the United States’ global share of public mass shootings; (3) how Lott and Moody misrepresent approximately 1,000 foreign cases from their own dataset, and what the corrected figures actually show; and (4) why readers should think twice about trusting Lott and Moody’s claims. My original study’s findings have now been confirmed by multiple replications, with various approaches, using Lott and Moody’s own data.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Lankford, 2020. "The Importance of Analyzing Public Mass Shooters Separately from Other Attackers When Estimating the Prevalence of Their Behavior Worldwide," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 17(1), pages 1-40–55, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:17:y:2020:i:1:p:40-55
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1145/LankfordMar2020.pdf?mimetype=pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/1195
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:17:y:2020:i:1:p:40-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jason Briggeman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edgmuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.