Mass Shooting Casualties, by Religion of Perpetrator: Muslim vs. Non-Muslim

Update, 6/12/2016, 4:15PM Pacific:

Here are two figures, with data updated to 6/12.

massshoot_m2

Figure 0a: 12 month moving average of mass shooting casualties; deaths inflicted by non-Muslims (dark red), wounded inflicted by non-Muslims (pink), deaths inflicted by Muslims (dark blue), wounded inflicted by Muslims (light blue). June observation for data through June 12. Source: Mother Jones, news reports for June 2016 and author’s calculations. Tabulations of religion of perpetrator by author.

massshoot_m2_cuma

Figure 0b: Cumulative sum of mass shooting casualties, beginning in 1982M08; deaths inflicted by non-Muslims (dark red), wounded inflicted by non-Muslims (pink), deaths inflicted by Muslims (dark blue), wounded inflicted by Muslims (light blue). June observation for data through June 12. Source: Mother Jones, news reports for June 2016 and author’s calculations. Tabulations of religion of perpetrator by author.

Original Post of December 10, 2015 begins

Donald Trump asserts we should be profiling Muslims because of the events in San Bernadino. Here are some statistics on casualties from mass shootings, disaggregated by religion of perpetrator (Muslim vs. non-Muslim).

massshoot_m1

Figure 1: 12 month moving average of mass shooting casualties; deaths inflicted by non-Muslims (dark red), wounded inflicted by non-Muslims (pink), deaths inflicted by Muslims (dark blue), wounded inflicted by Muslims (light blue). December observation for data through Dec. 2. Source: Mother Jones, news reports for November, December and author’s calculations. Tabulations of religion of perpetrator by author.

The fact that mass shooting casualties have been occurring with little concern by gun rights advocates (e.g. early 2013) suggests that casualties inflicted by some certain groups elicit disproportionate concern; see here.

Update, 12/12/2015: A tabulation of deaths due to domestic terrorism.

homegrownterrorism

Source: Shane, “Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11,” NY Times, June 24, 2015.

80 thoughts on “Mass Shooting Casualties, by Religion of Perpetrator: Muslim vs. Non-Muslim

  1. Lord

    Though one might want to weigh these by proportion of population and these would vary considerably by country.

  2. Steven Kopits

    Mother Jones lists four mass shootings in 2015. Two of these were perpetrated by Muslims, representing 19 of 37 fatalities this year. That is, Muslims have been responsible for more than half of mass shooting in the US this year.

    Had Paris not happened just a few weeks ago, San Bernardino might have passed without such a visceral public reaction. And had the Turkish fans at the soccer stadium, when called for a moments silence the victims of Paris, not responded with “Allahu Akbar”, Americans might be more tolerant.

    As it is, I think we’re about one more incident away from a full blown invasion of ISIS territories.

    http://cnn.com/2015/11/18/world/paris-soccer-fans-turkey/

    1. Tom Vesters

      Regardless of any prejudices, Allahu Akbar literally means God, he is the greatest. Christian Arabs use the phrase as well. Had you had a whole evangelical division shout out praise the lord and pray for the victims etc there’s be a whole lot less outrage. Turkey also has nothing to do with ISIS, at least not in supporting it. Additionally a minute of silence is a very Western concept, and not common outside of NA/Europe, so to ascertain aggressiveness to the act of it being broken is rather orientalist.

      Why Mother Jones only has 4 mass shooting this year is questionable (Why not planned parenthood), fact is that it doesn’t actually specify Muslim or not, and focuses on weapons used, if you want to use a database that fits your argument please use it in a way that’s actually supported by it. And only choosing this year for your own analysis is even more questionable, surely on an econ site I do not need to explain the importance of significant datasets?

      1. Steven Kopits

        If an American walked into a Turkish social services center in Istanbul and gunned down 14 people, and at a subsequent NFL game the announcer called for a moment’s silence, and the crowd cheered “Praise the Lord!”, I would be utterly, utterly appalled and deeply ashamed of my countrymen.

        If you are suggesting that Muslims do not understand the social impact of 120 Frenchmen gunned down and have no concept how to express their respect for that–well, you are not doing Muslims any favors.

        As for datasets, I did not choose Mother Jones. Menzie did.

        1. mg_10036

          Steven,

          Would you be ashamed of your countrymen if 25-35% were OK with banning all members of a religion to enter the country, where a substantial portion of that plurality would also extend that ban to existing US citizens, thus stripping existing citizens on the mere suspicion of being muslim? Or does your shame only extend for other people’s bigotry and intolerance?

          1. Steven Kopits

            Even before prosperity, the role of the government is to protect the citizens of the country from external threats, and to protect the citizenry from domestic internal threats of terrorism and crime, among others.

            In the face of a credible threat, the government can ban whomever they please, eg, people who have to Ebola infected regions. This could also extend to threats of terrorism under some circumstances.

            On the other hand, any citizen has the rights due a US citizen, without consideration of religion, sex or ethnic origin. Stripping someone of citizenship is no mean feat. I doubt there is real political support to do that. But if there were, if say Republicans passed such a vote in the House, yes, I would be ashamed.

            What you need to understand is that this kind of terrorism is a very touchy and emotional subject. Too have a Russian jet blown up, a Parisian massacre, and a California shooting spree, well, you can assume that people will be angry and on edge. If you think people are going to think bad thoughts about Muslims for a while, well, you’re right. Not much is going to get into policy, I would think. On the other hand, another event like this last one, and invading Syria will be on the table, in my opinion.

          2. mg_10036

            Steven,

            You write:

            >>> What you need to understand is that this kind of terrorism is a very touchy and emotional subject. Too have a Russian jet blown up, a Parisian massacre, and a California shooting spree, well, you can assume that people will be angry and on edge. If you think people are going to think bad thoughts about Muslims for a while, well, you’re right. Not much is going to get into policy, I would think. On the other hand, another event like this last one, and invading Syria will be on the table, in my opinion.

            This is part of your problem in understanding current terrorism. In your version of history, Russian jets blew up, people were massacred in Paris, California, etc thus making people mad at Muslims. Seems pretty reasonable, except for the fact that the “other side” remembers other parts of recent history that you casually forgot or failed to mention.

            1 — we invaded a country, Iraq, without much evidence based on the idea that the regime was related to our terrorism problem. In the process, we killed tens of thousands of people, and unleashed a horrible sectarian war. Some would even say, we created ISIS, when we created the power vacuum in Iraq. Many experts on the region who cautioned such an intervention when we have no ability to build a developing state into a liberal democracy (or any sort of functioning democracy). Those experts were ignored, and in the process a whole country was more or less destroyed and remains a failed state. Even Ted Cruz now admits, begrudgingly, that Saddam was better than what we have now.

            2 — we did more or less the same to Afghanistan, although Afghanistan was already a failed state. However, it doesn’t appear that we’ve helped in any way. it actually seems that our conflicted crazy policy of pursuing Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan all while supported the corrupt Pakistani government has actually made our Islamist friends even more upset with us and determined to further the fight.

            3 — All the while we support venal gulf states that promote the most hateful kind Islam though out the world, in exchange that those clerics don’t promote that stuff at home. Sounds like a plan.

            4 — to keep the struggle alive against the Jihadi thread, we’ve developed a policy of drone bombing that takes out random western aid backed hospitals and other scores of innocent civilians just so we can take out the proverbial needle in the haystack AQ or ISIS operative. I guess no one in the West feels a sense of vengeance or is spiteful when their loved ones are killed in the crossfire of police enforcement actions.

            So, start the clock the “Muslim” bad guys randomly killing and attacking us is a peculiar version of history that makes the bigotry a lot more palatable and understandable to the typical American these days. However, it doesn’t help to solve the problem one iota because the analysis involves a huge rejection of the facts on the ground that led to our current situation. I know that it is hard for us as a country to admit any wrong doing, as is easily seen in the reaction to the BLM movement, but resorting to outright religious bigotry, which is a total betrayal of our national values based on a dubious historical narrative is really too much.

          3. Steven Kopits

            The history starts with four jet aircraft killing 3,000 people. After that comes two wars, you’re right. So here’s the lesson: If you attack the US, we’re going to come get you.

          4. Steven Kopits

            As for the broader themes, I think we are seeing the stresses of modernization in the Arab world, of an autocratic structure that is no longer fitting the needs of an increasingly developed middle class. That’s the friction arising from DMUWI.

            Me personally? I’d create a Sunni homeland carved out of Syria and Iraq based on the Three Ideology Model and a purely liberal FAA. Lots of boots on the ground, hundreds of billions invested, 30 years of commitment. The Caliphate, if you like, with a liberal incentive system. Lee Kew Yuan does Lawrence of Arabia. Something along those lines.

          5. anon2345

            Steven Kopits.

            The history does not start with 9/11.

            We’ve been messing with the middle east for a long, long time.

            In the 50s we helped depose a democratically elected government in Iran for the Shah of Iran, a despot. Our despot.

            In 1998, we helped the Iraqis target the Iranians with chemical weapons.

            To this day we are killing innocents. Every day.

            This is not to say the other side is virtuous. They are not. But we have blood on our hands. And our government and much of the population, like you, does not want to know that. Until we do, our policy will remain shoot first; ask questions later and we will continue to make believe that the United States is the only virtuous actor. It’s all very insane. And this insanity is not confined to the middle east. Go read about the actions of the School of the Americas and their impact on Central America. Look at the unintended consequences of the great failure, the War on Drugs.

            Unless we learn to do more than say “Rah, Rah America!” we will continue to cause damage to our country as well as the rest of the world.

            One more thing: the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis. The Saudi government spreads the an extreme version of Islam, Wahhabism. Yet, we have never attacked Saudi Arabia and have never said a bad word about them. It’s all very insane.

          6. mg_10036

            Steven,

            You write:

            >>The history starts with four jet aircraft killing 3,000 people. After that comes two wars, you’re right. So here’s the lesson: If you attack the US, we’re going to come get you.

            Except that again, your understanding of near term history is woefully mistaken. We were attacked by 19 Islamists, 15 of whom were Saudis, trained in Afghanistan by AQ, protected by the Taliban regime, who was and still is a client regime of Pakistan. While we went to Afghanistan to get the “bad guys” who killed 3000 of us, the following happened:

            1 — We didn’t get Bin Laden. In fact, we let him go on a couple of occasions, due to border crossings so as to not offend our supposed allies, the Pakistanis. Lo and behold, 10 years later, BinLaden is camped out in a cushy house in their West Point.

            2 — We did nothing to our supposed Gulf allies to stop their citizens from financing AQ, Taliban, and other wacko movements hell bent on killing us. The initial funding from ISIS has largely come from private donors in the Gulf states, mostly from Saudi. How much came from members of the royal family, who are officially part of the state, is unknown but it ain’t zero? We still sell them tons of arms and everytime their king comes over here, our leaders greet them with a kiss and bend over.

            3 — We decided to invade Iraq, on bogus claims that they were somehow involved in 9/11. Completely bogus notions that have been utterly disproved over time. Nevertheless, we helped ignite a regional conflict, and then left, surprised, that there were no capable locals that could run the place when we left.

            Instead of “we’re coming to get you if you attack us”, I think the appropriate conclusion instead is that “if you attack us” venal politicians will opportunistically use an attack to push any agenda they want because an uninformed public can be convinced that some new policy will lead to less attacks in the future, even though there is no theoretical or empirical reason to believe so.

            Great job, Steven. Maybe that’s why your oil calls have been woefully off the mark.

          7. Steven Kopits

            I did not support the Iraq War. I did not believe the evidence of involvement was compelling.

            As for Afghanistan: Bin Laden took credit for 9/11. He lived under the Taliban Mullah’s protection. The US demanded the Mullahs deliver him. The Mullahs refused. The US invaded Afghanistan. That simple.

            Let me be clear: If you destroy the biggest buildings in a country’s biggest city and kill 3,000 of its residents, then that act will be treated as an act of war. That simple.

            Now, your view is:

            1) 9/11 was the US’s fault. Let me disagree.

            2) There should have been no US response to 9/11. Let me also disagree with that.

            3) If we just leave ISIS alone, they’ll leave us alone. Let me disagree with that, too.

            What people see is that not all Muslims are terrorists, but pretty much all organized terrorists are Muslims, all the way back to the PLO days. Yes, there was ETA and the Red Brigade in Spain and Germany, as well as the IRA in Ireland. With the fall of communism, however, these groups largely disappeared, and they were primarily national actors anyway. (The IRA period ended with a political settlement.) So if you start cataloguing organized terrorism–particularly international terrorism–in the last 40 years, really, the Muslim factor looms pretty large.

            You don’t perceive risk in the US. Clearly, you must not live or work in Manhattan. I could show you a very compelling photo of the twin towers collapsing–and you can see my office window in the same frame. Terrorism may be a joke to you, but it’s not for those who lived through 9/11, followed Paris live, know the Jihadi John videos, or leafed through the pictures of the passengers on the Russian jet. Back when I worked in Manhattan, we walked past the Fed building at Maiden Lane on the way to lunch every day. I once commented to my analyst, you don’t suppose some terrorist would try to blow that up, do you? Well, yes, as it turns out. (http://pamelageller.com/2012/10/fbi-arrests-muslim-terrorist-in-alleged-plot-to-bomb-ny-fed-savage.html/) Of maybe bomb Times Square, where my brother used to work? Opps, that, too. (http://theguardian.com/us-news/times-square-bomb)

            So, we’re really going to disagree on these points. I don’t see the world your way.

          8. mg_10036

            @Steven,

            It must be nice to live in a world where you only get to argue with straw men, as opposed to dealing with actual arguments.

            You write:

            >> Now, your view is:
            1) 9/11 was the US’s fault. Let me disagree.
            2) There should have been no US response to 9/11. Let me also disagree with that.
            3) If we just leave ISIS alone, they’ll leave us alone. Let me disagree with that, too.

            Now, where in the world can you infer this from what I’ve stated? This is the “lack of reality” that you and your fellow supporters have. This lack of reality will only result in furthering terrorism and reducing American power and resources.

            1 — No where in my writings did I claim or infer that 9/11 was America’s fault. So, you can disagree with your own fabricated boogeyman if you want, but shows how out of touch you are.

            2 — There most definitely should have been a US response to 9/11. I never claimed or suggested otherwise. My claim is that WHAT WE DID DO did little to prevent future 9/11s. Had we just bombed the hell out of Taliban and got of Afghanistan, that would be one thing. Instead, we got into this absurd “nation building” exercise without an inkling of how to do that. Moreover, we concluded, incorrectly, that our biggest ally will be Pakistan and that the “axis of evil” against us was Iran+Iraq+North Korea when in fact the axis of evil was Saudi + Pakistan + Taliban. What I’m claiming pretty vociferously is that our response was completely inadequate and did nothing to deter or prevent future 9/11s, all because thinkers like you can’t be bothered to look at the issue with even a small degree of nuance and historical knowledge.

            3 — I don’t know if ISIS will leave us alone if we leave them alone. Neither do you. What I do know that they aren’t really attacking or threatening the other major world power, China, who happen to be even bigger infidels and non-believers than us. Suffice to say, that that seems more complicated. The other thing I know is that until we are ready to govern the land they control or have locals that can competently hold the land, ISIS will be only followed by yet a crazier group, just like ISIS followed AQ. You can bank on that because “nature abhors a power vacuum” is about as close to a truism in political science as any.

            Regarding, Iraq, your droll little statement consists of:
            >>>I did not support the Iraq War. I did not believe the evidence of involvement was compelling.

            Well that’s convenient. Unfortunately, that little intervention, which is the big elephant in the room, is why ISIS is a reality now versus some fantasy in the mind of a budding jihadist. The views you’ve stated here, and your support for targeting “Muslim terrorism” are the main reasons given by the war-mongerers in our society who want more intervention, more boots on the ground, essentially more Iraqs. That seems like insanity to me. It’s not well thought out, and it certainly won’t help us with our long-term strategic interests of maintaining the international system and not giving these non-state actors operating room for their jihadist fantasies.

            Moreover, you don’t have a monopoly on outrage over 9/11. I do live in Manhattan and did during that awful day. I have no love for these Islamists, but I don’t think the path we’ve been on or the one you’re suggesting will be effective against them.

          9. anon2345

            I concur with mg:

            “It must be nice to live in a world where you only get to argue with straw men, as opposed to dealing with actual arguments.”

            I’d have a lot more sympathy if you were on the front lines fighting, but you are not. So it’s okay to send someone else’s son or daughter to die in a futile, ill-considered war, but not yourself.

            That stinks.

          10. Steven Kopits

            As regards culpability for 9/11, your write:

            “History does not start with 9/11. We’ve been messing with the middle east for a long, long time. In the 50s we helped depose a democratically elected government in Iran for the Shah of Iran, a despot. Our despot.

            “In 1998, we helped the Iraqis target the Iranians with chemical weapons. This is not to say the other side is virtuous. They are not. But we have blood on our hands.”

            To me, this suggests you think the US provoked 9/11. That’s the blood on our hands. Or don’t you think that?

            ****

            As regards the US response to 9/11, you write:

            “There most definitely should have been a US response to 9/11. I never claimed or suggested otherwise. My claim is that WHAT WE DID DO did little to prevent future 9/11s. Had we just bombed the hell out of Taliban and got [out] of Afghanistan, that would be one thing.”

            Thus, you seem to think our response to 9/11 should have been the bombing of Afghanistan:

            But you don’t seem to like this much, either:

            “[T]o keep the struggle alive against the Jihadi thread, we’ve developed a policy of drone bombing that takes out random western aid backed hospitals and other scores of innocent civilians just so we can take out the proverbial needle in the haystack AQ or ISIS operative. I guess no one in the West feels a sense of vengeance or is spiteful when their loved ones are killed in the crossfire of police enforcement actions. To this day we are killing innocents. Every day.”

            Surely, you would have suggested the bombing after 9/11 be heavy and largely indiscriminate. We would surely have been killing innocents every day. Or were you thinking strikes like those against ISIS?

            ******

            As for “I don’t know if ISIS will leave us alone if we leave them alone. ” You’re kidding, right? You think, with three successful terrorist strikes in two months, ISIS will now declare victory and pack it in? That’s your operating thesis? Would you then pull the soldiers out of Penn Station? I wouldn’t.

            *******

            Finally, I agree on the nation building. But countries, like individuals, do not always strike out to make a better world. They strike out in defiance. If you hurt us, know that we will hurt you. I don’t think anyone ever had any illusions about successful nation building in Afghanistan. You go there, occupy it for a decade, and then withdraw, another in a historical parade of conquerors who came and went.

            *******

            As for Iraq, invading that country was a fool’s errand. We did not have the political technology.

            But we do have it today. With an FAA, we’d have a shot. I don’t know that even an that would have been enough to hold Iraq together. If the Czechs and Slovaks couldn’t get along (I can’t tell the difference), what chance is there for the Sunnis and Shiites? Probably not great in the best of cases. You could still put together a Sunni caliphate with an FAA and make a real country of it.

            In any event, invading Iraq was a mistake, unless we were prepared to deal with the dissolution of that country. On the other hand, in terms of US security, failing to sign a Status of Forces agreement and place a US base in western Iraq was a huge mistake. ISIS would be a much smaller problem today if we had done that.

          11. Steven Kopits

            Sorry, first section was a response to anon, not mg.

            But as for Anon, you’re correct in highlighting the tension between a conservative and liberal view. The liberal says, “Our boys will be hurt in action, don’t send them.” The conservative says, “If we are paralyzed with fear for our soldiers, we have no army at all, and no capability of projecting force or defending ourselves. We are defenseless.”

            Both views are valid in their own ways. An FAA insures that soldiers are used as minimally as possible.

          12. anon2345

            @ Steve

            “To me, this suggests you think the US provoked 9/11. That’s the blood on our hands. Or don’t you think that?”

            No. I do not think that.

            The blood on our hands is from our actions in the Middle East and in other areas of the world. We did not provoke the 9/11 attacks. But we did kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and dislocate thousands more who had nothing to do with 9/11. And we continue to kill innocents every day.

            We have blood on our hands independent of 9/11 from our actions both before and after that event and until we wake up to the utter depravity and insanity of our foreign policy we will continue to destroy our country and the rest of the world.

            Let me say that again. We kill innocents every day. We kill innocents every day. The fourteen who died in California is nothing compared to what we do every day, which we close our eyes to.

        2. mg_10036

          @Steven,

          Thanks for at least retracting your ascribing a statement made by anon to me. That at least indicates that you are remotely willing to have a good faith conversation about this.

          My bottom line on all this is as follows: We are looking to stop terrorists from attacking us. In addition to basic security measures that do not compromise our civil liberties and our open society, I’m assuming that a major part of stopping the terrorists from attacking us is to prevent them from organizing, training, and controlling territory in order to accomplish the first 2. In order to do this, we will definitely need the support of the locals in the Mideast and in other parts of the Muslim world to aid us in our efforts. The absurd claims last night in the debate of “carpet bombing” ISIS basically puts Ted Cruz and Trump on the same moral footing as Bashar Al-Assad, who has in fact been carpet bombing all ISIS territories in as crude a manner as Cruz and Trump insist. Not only is that deeply immoral and a violation of all American values, but if anything, it has led to greater recruitment for ISIS and a much greater willingness on the part of the local population to work with ISIS. This is not theory. This is EXACTLY what happened over the last few years in Syria. People who otherwise would be neutral at best toward ISIS decided, had 3 basic options:

          1 — pledge allegiance to Assad, which won’t matter anyway, since the regime will be indiscriminate about mass killing and bombing.
          2 — flee Syria and hope to immigrate somewhere
          3 — pledge allegiance to ISIS and make the bet that living under ISIS is still preferable to definitely being carpet bombed by Assad, who will not distinguish between innocent bystanders and ISIS soldiers operating in the same geography.

          You can see that option #1 is the worst option. Option #2 has been pretty much exhausted, even more so that Republicans and right-wingers want to ban all immigration from Syria. So, that leaves most people to pursue #3, whether they like it or not.

          From this reality, making this a war against a whole religion with 1.6 billion adherents is shear lunacy. While it may get votes from rednecks and illiterate right wingers, it has no prayer of working. We can’t bomb our way through this because we will NEVER be willing to actually govern those areas. Moreover, the more indiscriminate and long-term our bombing policy becomes, the more terrorists we create — that is a fact lost on most Americans. No doubt the huge carnage of civilians and the eruption of a sectarian war in Iraq led many toward ISIS. The reason for this is simple: bombing with huge civilian toll as a permanent policy can not persuade those locals to rise against the terrorists. Much more likely is the creation of whole new swaths of people who have legitimate grievances against us.

          This kind of ethnic chauvinism that the Republicans have unleashed is deeply unproductive at best, indicative of huge amounts of underlying bigotry, and will not persuade our enemies to change one iota, because now they have NO incentive to yield. When in history has anyone surrendered to an enemy that sees your mere countenance as a problem? This is a position that ISIS can hold because they have no power and are the upstarts. Those with power cannot be tricked into this position because the only way out is genocide. If you don’t think our society will be significantly diminished after committing genocide, then you’re a fool. And I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic. The current political language is the language of genocide. For God sakes, they were debating whether it was OK to blow innocent family members of terrorists away last night, including children. That’s how loony we’ve become.

          You don’t see this?

          1. Steven Kopits

            A belated reply:

            The question comes down to who controls territory. If it’s Assad, then he’s the guy. If it’s ISIS, then they’re in charge. Of the two, ISIS is worse.

            I am personally not convinced that ISIS lacks appeal. I think the prospect of a Sunni homeland does hold appeal, and I think ISIS can recruit on that basis, and also because they are showing success. Do you think Al Qaeda will recover from the death of bin Laden? I don’t think so. I think Al Qaeda is a spent force. The US crushed it; and ISIS has superseded it.

            We can beat ISIS, and doing so will stop a good bit of sympathetic terrorism. That would not, however, address the underlying problems of the Middle East, of the aspiration for self-determination by an increasingly middle class population there. That’s the trickier part.

            So, we have four options:

            1. Walk away and pretend it doesn’t exist. In such an event, ISIS will bring the fight to us.
            2. Bomb ISIS — our current strategy. However, if you don’t hold the ground, it’s hard to definitely beat an opponent, just as our experience has shown.
            3. Invade Syria and Iraq — I suspect it will come down to this. Without a change in governance approach, this victory will prove as fleeting as our victory in Iraq the last time around.
            4. Invade and install an FAA. This is heavy nation building, committing a lot of time and money. Personally, I think it could work.

      2. PeakTrader

        Tom, if Christians shouted “Praise the Lord” after each mass killing of Muslims and innocent people, do you believe thousands of Christians would chant “Praise the Lord” at a stadium when asked to give a moment of silence to the victims of another mass killing?

        And, do you believe Muslims don’t understand “silence?”

        Can you tell me what percentage of Turks sympathize with ISIL? You seem to suggest zero.

    2. Jeffrey J. Brown

      Reportedly, the Turkish soccer fans also booed in response to the call for a moment of silence, in addition to chanting “Allahu Akbar.”

    3. baffling

      steven, perhaps you shouldn’t consider the turkish event as a reflection of muslims and turks-it is a rather secular country, especially for the younger crowd. perhaps the behavior is more representative of soccer fans than religion or nationality? we had another nationality develop a following of “hooligans”, that represented the unruly soccer fans in great britain. a turkish opera house may provide a different response?

      1. PeakTrader

        Robert, without the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, the result could’ve been better or worse.

        However, if you’re looking for a rosy result in the Middle East, good luck.

        Nonetheless, it would’ve been easier to destroy ISIL before it became embedded, was smaller, and less powerful.

        And, fewer peaceful Muslims would’ve been displaced or slaughtered.

      2. Steven Kopits

        This is an important point, Robert, and emphasizes the importance of an FAA. (See my blog.)

        Let’s use a corporate example to illustrate.

        Let’s assume that corporate management at General Motors was deposed, and only the brand managers at Chevy and Cadillac remained. And let’s assume that Chevy inherited the corporation, but the bonuses of Chevy management were determined by Chevy sales and the wages and bonuses paid to Chevy (but not Cadillac) employees. Now, how would Chevy management treat the Cadillac division, and how would Cadillac feel about the arrangement?

        Obviously, Chevy management would try to bring all former benefits going to Cadillac back to Chevy, and would fail to invest in the Cadillac division. Cadillac management and employees would be at best ignored, at worst, actively shunned. Under such circumstances, Cadillac might want to strike out on their own and would start a series of, perhaps, ‘terrorist’ actions to loosen Chevy’s grip on them and establish their bonafides in establishing a Cadillac ‘caliphate’.

        Now, you might object, “But Steven, this could be easily solved if we aligned the pay of Chevy’s managers with the good of the entire GM group. Or we could spin off Cadillac and align the incentives of management there, that could work, too. It’s not that hard to solve.”

        And my answer would be, “Bingo.”

  3. Steven Kopits

    As for guns generally (and not pertaining to terrorism), consider this Chicago police department report from 2011 for the city of Chicago:

    – 83% of murders were committed with guns (Tab 11)
    – Of those committed with guns, 351 murders (97%) were committed with handguns (Tab 12)
    – In 2011, in all of Chicago, exactly 1 murder in 433 total (including non-gun murders) was committed with a rifle. (Table 12)

    If you want to outlaw guns, then handguns are the relevant weapons. Rifles of any sort hardly make a dent.

    And if you want to add demographics, in Chicago in 2011:

    – more than 90% of the killers were male (Fig 26)
    – 95% of the killers were black or Hispanic; 3.5% were white (Fig. 27)
    – effectively half of perpetrators were between the ages of 17-25; almost all were between 17-35

    And interestingly:
    – about 90% of murderers had a prior arrest history (Fig. 30)
    – 94% of murder victims were black or Hispanic; 5% were white (Fig. 16)
    – about 90% of victims were male
    – 80% of murder victims (victims, not offenders) had prior arrests

    http://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf

    1. Bob

      And when a cop murders a black kid in Chicago, the Democrat in control, who also happens to be up for reelection, covers it up. Democrat politics “trump” everything………

      1. Steven Kopits

        Cover ups know no party. I think we can’t speak of murder rates without reference to race, since the linkage is so stark. But bad killings by cops can happen anywhere, under any kind of administration. I don’t know the antecedents of shooting in Chicago, but it looks pretty bad.

      1. Steven Kopits

        Rates had fallen quite sharply since the 1990s, but they are up smartly in a number of US cities, for example, up nearly 60% in Baltimore this year. Still, the primary beneficiaries of reduced homicide rates must have been black communities, and yet I don’t ever recall reading a story or seeing a study on this.

  4. PeakTrader

    There’s a difference between murder in Western Civilization and wanting to destroy Western Civilization.

    We need to stop appeasing and use Christmas instead of Holiday in the media again.

    1. baffling

      peak,
      “We need to stop appeasing and use Christmas instead of Holiday in the media again.”
      why? other than to impose your insecurities on others?

      i celebrate thanksgiving, christmas, new years and another christmas (orthodox) over the HOLIDAY season. it is a holiday season. i thoroughly enjoy my thanksgiving and new years celebrations. it’s a shame i have to give them up as well, so that we can celebrate only your christmas season. don’t be so closed minded. enjoy the holidays!

      1. PeakTrader

        Baffling, I’m not the one appeasing to terrorists, like you want to.

        If it’s a Christmas party, and the media knows it, why call it a holiday party?

        Why do you accept biased and inaccurate info?

        1. baffling

          peak, your statement is patently false. i am not appeasing terrorists in the slightest. equating “holiday” with appeasing terrorists is plain foolish.

          i am probably much younger than you. the younger generation has a much more tolerant view of the world. we do not want to live in the world as you view it, and we do not have to live in that world. it is dark, bleak, pessimistic and lonely. i have no problem including people of all backgrounds during the holidays. it makes the season a brighter time for everyone. you can stay home alone during the holidays, or you can interact in the modern world. your choice.

          1. PeakTrader

            Baffling, if a Christian says Merry Christmas to you, that would make you “dark, bleak, pessimistic, and lonely?”

            Or, you’d feel that way about a Christmas party?

            You’re the one who’s intolerant.

          2. baffling

            no peak. if a christian says to me merry christmas, i would be happy. i would ALSO be happy if that person (religion unknown) said to me happy holidays. i also enjoy going to both christmas parties and holiday parties. why should i be angry over either statement? why do you get dark, bleak, pessimistic and lonely if somebody wishes you happy holidays? perhaps you should reexamine your definition of intolerant. this war on christmas argument is really passe. you are welcome to say merry christmas. it is intolerant to get angry at a happy holidays reply. simply grab a drink and cheers!

    2. mg_10036

      If you think using the word “Christmas” vs. “Holiday” is a good start to stopping the jihadi problem, we’re in trouble. The origin of Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas was largely to be inclusive of Jewish folks, who do not celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, by and large. Muslims, on the other hand, generally, have no problem celebrating Christmas, as their religion generally believes in the same birth of Christ story as Christians do. Muslims would not celebrate Easter, on the other hand, since they by and large reject the Crucifixion story.

      If this blog’s readers are so ignorant about the basic facts of confronting Islamic extremism, I am really worried.

        1. baffling

          it’s not the mainstream media. much of the public has a diverse enough viewpoint to be inclusive rather than exclusive. only on faux news do you get the war on christmas ideology targeting the closed minded.

          1. PeakTrader

            Baffling, try to at least tolerate all the holidays.

            Diversity is not one size fits all.

            You’re too closed minded.

          2. baffling

            peak, i am not the one who has a problem with happy holidays or merry christmas. you appear to have the problem. why be angry if i wish you a happy holidays? that is closed minded.

          3. PeakTrader

            Baffling, you’re the one who seems angry and has the problem accepting Christmas.

            I accept all holidays. The more, the merrier 🙂

          4. baffling

            peak, i even put up my christmas tree! not sure how i don’t accept christmas. but i do not see why i should force somebody to say merry christmas to me. if they choose to say happy holidays, i smile back and say cheers. again the war on christmas is in the imagination of faux news and its disciples-its simply a gimmick for ratings and revenue. i never said you could not say merry christmas. please sing christmas carols to your hearts desire.

  5. Joseph

    “We need to stop appeasing and use Christmas instead of Holiday in the media again.”

    Brilliant! Who knew the answer to world peace was so easy — in the mind of a five-year-old.

    But you are a little late. Ann Coulter said it first: ” We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Now that’s the ticket!

      1. Sherparick

        I think Joseph is being snarky at “Peak Trader.” Ann Coulter is absurd and says many absurd things. Peak Trader is saying something absurd similar to the absurd and evil things Ann Coulter says. Hence, Peak Trader is also absurd. Which he is (Yes, I am sure the two religious nuts in California would totally not armed themselves to the teeth (Viva la Second Amendment!!) and committed mass murder if the office “Holiday” Party had been called the office “Christmas Party.”) By the way, I think the groups being most “appeased” by the use of “Holiday” rather than “Christmas” are your fellow citizens who happen to be Jewish or non-believers. For Muslims, Jesus is a venerated prophet, ranked just below Mohammad. http://patheos.com/blogs/orthodixie/2005/06/islam-a-christian-heresy.html Some Muslims even celebrate Christmas. http://patheos.com/blogs/orthodixie/2005/06/islam-a-christian-heresy.html

        I do note an error in the graph in that the CIA shooting incident in which two were killed and 3 wounded by Mir Qazi in 1993. Like the recent, gunman in San Bernardino, Mr. Qazi was a Pakistani and his funeral in 2002 upon the return of his body to Pakistan after his execution, and after 9/11, probably indicates that we do have issues with Pakistan (and this was before the drone campaign became intense after 2009).

        1. PeakTrader

          Why is it absurd to call a Christmas party a Christmas party?

          And, Ann Coulter’s statement was in the context of war. She used that example in the context of how to better defeat our enemies compared to carpet bombing civilians in Nazi Germany.

    1. PeakTrader

      What does Ann Coulter have to do with my statement?

      If you’re that afraid, convert to Islam.

      Then, you’ll be safe 🙂

      1. mg_10036

        @PeakTrader,

        I’m surprised you think that converting to Islam would be even remotely safer. First of all, most of the terrorist targets are other muslims in muslim countries. Next, if you happen to be muslim in the middle east or Afghanistan/Pakistan, you might be an unlucky soul that gets blown out of the sky by a drone — either because you lived next to bad guy or because some person with access to the US military who didn’t like you dropped a dime on you by telling the Americans that you were “a terrorist” — after all, apparently members of our Afghan “allies” told our military that a Doctors Without Borders hospital was actually a Taliban hangout, which led to the hospital being blown to smithereens.

        IF you happen to convert to Islam here, you are likely to be deported back to your country pretty soon if you are a “visitor” or put into internment camps if you are a citizen. Maybe, you think internment camps are safe places. Otherwise, you’ll have some of your neighbors randomly shoot at you or burn your house down in a climate of fear mongering and hate filled mania.

        So, while you maybe safe for a while as a convert in the US. Give it a while.

        1. PeakTrader

          Mg, you don’t want to be a Christian in most Muslim countries either. So?

          Can you tell me where those internment camps for Muslims are in the U.S.?

          What about that shooter in the U.S. asking whether the victims where Christian or Muslim? He shot the Christians in the head and shot the Muslims in the leg.

    2. Joseph

      Sorry, Spencer. My mistake. I should have used sarcasm tags to prevent confusion. Sarcasm isn’t always obvious when there are true crazies in the conversation. Even the most ridiculous suggestions might be taken seriously.

  6. rtd

    I’m not in favor of TheDonald’s comment (which wasn’t, as Menzie claims “because of the events in San Bernadino”. San Bernadino was one of multiple events to provide an impetus of TheDonald’s asinine remarks. Even Menzie’s linked article makes this clear with the following: “”What’s too far? What’s too far? They’re killing people,” Trump said. “Whether it’s what we just saw in California or in Paris. They’re killing people, innocent people.”” but this is just another case of Menzie’s disingenuous ‘reporting’). The bigger issue is that Menzie’s post ignores the oft-stated (or, even if it’s merely assumed – correctly or incorrectly) reason behind these actions. Killing because of religious interpretation is prominent with one of these groups & not the other. Also it’s an easier target. Again, I don’t agree with Trump, but I also don’t agree (as expected) with Menzie’s ‘analysis’.

  7. Joseph

    rtd: “Killing because of religious interpretation is prominent with one of these groups & not the other.”

    Oh, really?

    What about the guy who killed three people at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Clinic.
    Or the guy who assassinated clinic Dr. David Gunn.
    Or the guy who assassinated clinic receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
    Or the guy who assassinated clinic security officer Robert Sanderson.
    Or the guy who assassinated clinic Dr. Barnett Slepian.
    Or the guy who assassinated clinic Dr. George Tiller.
    Or the guy who kidnapped clinic Dr. Hector Zevallos and his wife Rosalee Jean.
    Or the guy who stabbed 15 times clinic Dr. Calvin Jackson.
    Or the guy who shot into the home of clinic Dr. David Gandell.
    Or the guy who blinded clinic nurse Emily Lyons.
    All doing the work of their Christian god.
    People like Father Edward Markley who assaulted three workers and crippled one in an attack.
    The four people who firebombed a clinic on Christmas Day as “a gift to Jesus on his birthday.”
    The Christian Identity member who bombed three clinics.
    The Catholic priest who drove his car into a clinic and attacked with an ax.
    The Christian Army of God member who bombed a clinic.
    The Army of God member who mailed anthrax hoax letters to 500 clinics.
    20% of clinics report severe violent attacks each year including invasions, arson, bombings, chemical attacks, stalking, physical violence, gunfire, bomb threats, death threats, and arson threats.

    Looks like “religious interpretation” terrorism to me.

    1. rtd

      First, they’re clearly all lunatics & I’m in agreement with idiocy of

      But tell me, of Menzie’s “mass casualties”, which of the two groups identified has a greater percentage of their respective mass casualties where the perpetrator(s) conduct their acts in the name of their religion. I’m guessing it would be the Muslim group. But maybe not. However, it doesn’t really matter. As I clearly stated “even if it’s merely assumed – correctly or incorrectly” the issue is that most of the media reports of mass causalities perpetrated by Muslims are (seemingly to a large number of Americans) borne by Islam itself. It seems disingenuous to imply the “disproportionate concern” is due to Muslim/non-Muslim whereas I feel that the root cause of the “disproportionate concern” is Muslims committing these acts in the name of their religion combined with Islam not being a religion that many Americans feel they can relate to. If the mass casualties weren’t in the name of Allah, I think (certainly I don’t know) there’d be little to no issue from Trump et al.

  8. Patrick MacAuley

    Why is this list of massacres limited to shootings? It leaves out the 2,977 people slaughtered in 9/11 by Muslim terrorists, the worst terrorist massacre in US history.

    This looks like a selective use of facts, to try to minimize the impact of Islamist terrorism.

      1. rtd

        Wow – interesting (but not very surprising) – data should be normalized to better show the disparity (e.g. as %of Muslim/non-Muslim population. Showing levels is such an elementary approach or, likely in this case, thinly veiled subjectivity based on agenda.

        1. Menzie Chinn Post author

          rtd: I agree it might be interesting to normalize. For instance, we could disaggregate into male/female, then normalize. Republicans/Democrats, then normalize. I don’t happen to have a time series on Muslim Americans in America. If you have the statistics, please send them along.

          1. Menzie Chinn Post author

            rtd: That was my point. There isn’t a time series that goes back as far as the series on for instance mass shootings, since data is not collected by BuCensus.

          2. rtd

            And my point is that even using inflated #s,m based on the limited sampling available, the narrative will likely remain the same.

  9. 2slugbaits

    Paul Krugman has a new column connecting GOP courting of right wing bigots with Trump’s success. A study by the US Army Military Academy at West Point’s Combatting Terrorism Center found that the correlation actually works the other way; the number of GOP congress critters increases the number of far right wing attacks. For example, a stepwise regression finds that “the most significant factor is the number of Republicans in the House” with a coefficient of 0.41 and significant at the p=0.01 level. The intuition is that far right wing groups expect a more tolerant and permissive (sometimes even supportive) response from GOP politicians.

    The same study (“Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right” Nov 2012) also found that far right terrorism in the US dwarfs Muslim terrorism in the US…by a longshot. Interestingly the study found that 55% of far right wing violent attacks have targeted police officers.

    1. PeakTrader

      The study represents a very tiny percentage of “the far right.”

      There aren’t enough right wing bigots to have an effect on the Trump campaign.

      The most violent crimes are by minorities and most minorities vote for Democrats.

      Perhaps, fewer Democrat mayors reduces violent crimes.

      1. 2slugbaits

        Peak Trader I don’t know how you define a minority, but most…WAY most terrorist acts are committed by otherwise socially respectable white conservatives. Sorry, that’s what the data show. Also, I think you are conflating violent crime and terrorist acts. All terrorist acts are violent crimes, but not all violent crimes are terrorist acts. Terrorist .have a political purpose; robberies and gangland slayings do not

        1. PeakTrader

          2slugbaits, I can understand conservatives in this country are more likely to be against big government like the American Patriots in the 18th century were more likely to be against the British Empire.

          And, some conservatives are crackpots.

          However, there’s been much more political and violent turmoil in Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and even Europe than the U.S. or North America over the past 100 years.

    2. Steven Kopits

      Really? Here’s the research page of the Combatting Terrorism Center.

      https://ctc.usma.edu/about/mission/we-research#

      I believe every single publication listed on this page deals with Islamic terrorism in some form.

      To suggest that American terrorism dwarfs Muslim terrorism dishonors the memories of those who died at the Pentagon on 9/11.

      1. 2slugbaits

        Sorry, but you’re wrong. Some of the publications deal with radical Islamic terrorism…and globally that kind of terrorism is the most prevalent right now. But within the US it is far right wing terrorism that dominates, not Islamic terrorism. At other times the world worried about other kinds of terrorism; e.g., national liberation front groups in Latin America, the IRA in Britain, Serbian terrorists, various terrorist groups in Italy and Germany, etc. But if you’re an American, then you should be much more concerned with domestic right wing groups than radical ISIS groups. If you think we should close our borders to Muslims, then you should also favor deporting white Christian conservatives because that is a far more dangerous demographic group within this country.

        1. CoRev

          This kind of argument, exaggerated emphasis of a single/minimal reference, is what we too often see. ” Sorry, but you’re wrong. Some of the publications deal with radical Islamic terrorism…and globally that kind of terrorism is the most prevalent right now. But within the US it is far right wing terrorism that dominates, not Islamic terrorism….” Unless 2slugs is looking at other publications, those listed as Featured Articles at the site are:
          “CTC Perspectives – The French Fore… 11.14.15
          CTC Perspectives – Al-Adnani’s P… 10.16.15
          The Group That Calls Itself a State: Und… 12.16.14
          Managing a Transnational Insurgency: The… 12.16.14
          *Challengers from the Sidelines: Understa… 01.15.13*
          Haqqani Network Financing 07.31.12
          Beware of Imitators: Al-Qa`ida through t… 06.04.12
          Letters from Abbottabad: Bin Ladin Sidel… 05.03.12
          Edges of Radicalization: Ideas, Individu… 02.14.12
          Policy Considerations in Combating Terro… 01.05.12
          A False Foundation? AQAP, Tribes and Ung… 10.03.11
          The Haqqani Nexus and the Evolution of a… 07.13.11 ”

          * The only article that explicitly calls out domestic terrorism.

          So “some” is actually nearly all of the 12 listed, and the specific reference is “ONE” when talking about domestic terrorism. There may be 1 or 2 that are not specific. That’s why I point out the exaggeration.

          1. 2slugbaits

            CoRev Reread my reply to Steven Kopits. I said that some of the studies were about Islamic terrorism. One study is explicitly about right wing terrorism, but that does not mean all of the rest are about Islamic terrorism. A few of the papers are actually about decision risk models in operations research as applied to terrorism in general. Those OR papers were some of the decision risk studies from a recent Military Operations Research Society symposium. The MORS symposia rotate around each of the service academies. There are additional papers dealing with VAR models of terrorist shocks, tests for whether terrorists randomize their attacks, terrorist “production functions,” etc. A lot of those studies deal with terrorist attacks in Spain because there is a long time series history with Spanish terrorist groups. And keep in mind that you’re only seeing the unclassified studies.

  10. Joseph

    Steven: “I believe every single publication listed on this page deals with Islamic terrorism in some form.”

    Uh, Steven, are you aware that you linked to the US military academy? The U.S. military is prohibited from participating in domestic law enforcement by the Posse Comitatus Act. That’s Homeland Security’s job. Of course the military academy is going to focus exclusively on foreign activity because that is their one and only job.

    Steven: “To suggest that American terrorism dwarfs Muslim terrorism dishonors the memories of those who died at the Pentagon on 9/11.”

    So, Steven are you dishonoring the memory of the 168 who died at Oklahoma City at the hands of white supremacists? What a stupid thing for you to say.

    1. Steven Kopits

      Joseph –

      To the best of my knowledge, Slugs works for DoD. I would suggest he go down to the Pentagon and declare to his colleagues that “[I]f you’re an American, then you should be much more concerned with domestic right wing groups than radical ISIS groups.”

      https://google.com/search?q=plaque+at+pentagon+honoring+9/11+victims&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS507US508&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1w-DYuNvJAhWDdT4KHXKpAawQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=901#imgrc=XbpFumvwNKpGWM%3A

      1. baffling

        steven, that is a tacky response. you know very well there are limitations to what and where the us military can act, irregardless of the personal views of those military folks. we restrict domestic military action and responsibility on our own soil for very good reasons. you want to violate that principle to win an argument?

  11. Patrick MacAuley

    Joseph,
    You have your numbers upside-down. The 9/11 massacre killed 2,977 people, while the Oklahoma City killed 168 people.

      1. CoRev

        I’m not all together sure of what you are trying to say with the use of tabulation, but your article has to do with “Mass Shootings”, and your NYT reference mixes some of the bombings, but ignores 9/11, and does not include the San Bernadino shooting. I would think the analysis would be better if we removed those shootings that were perpetrated by the mentally ill (mental illness can not be blamed upon religion), and weight the shootings by US religious populations.

        1. Rick Stryker

          Corev,

          Yes, I agree with your point. I don’t see the point of lumping all mass shootings together and then comparing to Islamic terrorism. Why should we be including the Aurora theater shooting in the comparison. The perpetrator of that one thought he was the joker.

  12. Kirk

    If you included 9/11 it would make this comparison a joke. Also, muslims are about 2% of the population (or something like that) and extremists account for 50ish% of the casualties. Seems pretty cut and dry to me…

  13. PeakTrader

    There are violent political acts by left wing Anarchists, those intolerant of a Confederate flag sticker on a car, or even a Republican sticker.

Comments are closed.