mad scientist statistics black board calculate
Shutterstock
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

CBS:  So how do you map America’s “firearm ecosystem”?

Porfiri: Basically, the way we see the “firearm ecosystem” is a combination of different layers, that includes individual behavior, state-level behavior and the national level. We have to understand how policies shape individual behavior and then overall how these interactions define where we stand as a country. 

So we try to understand what are the implication of individual choices on the legal system within a particular state. How states interact with each other from a legal point of view, in terms of adopting policies or removing the policy — understanding how these policies shape individual behavior. And then overall, how all these interactions define where we stand as a country, as the U.S., with respect to prevalence [of gun] violence.

CBS: What do we need to understand about these layers?

Porfiri: We are trying to address questions on the individual decision-making of people. What are the drivers? What is behind the decision-making and behavior of a mass shooter?

At the state level, we are trying to understand what laws are successful in reducing violence. We are trying to understand how states interact with respect to each other with respect to the legal environment. So for example, if state number one adopts a new policy, will that policy diffuse to other states? If so, why and when?

We have a lot of insights at different levels and we need to patch them together, but we are not there yet. There are a lot of gaps to fill even at the basic data-collection level. And that makes it very hard for us to then do quantitative work that can be translated into statistics and information that another person who is a policymaker can act upon.

We have many different threads we are following to help understand how the ecosystem connects — for example, tracing how people buy guns depending on their location and understanding the role of peer pressure when people buy guns. We are trying to build connections with cities to see if we can contribute ways to track illegal guns. We are running all the studies — individual, state and national now, separately — but we need to find ways to relate individual behavior to the state and then to the national level, but that we don’t have yet. 

— Cara Tabachnick in How mapping America’s “firearm ecosystem” could help lead to gun violence solutions

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

    • Someone is clearly overthinking the issue.

      Defunding police and emboldening criminals makes people concerned for their safety and others near to them and provides an incentive for people to take of themselves and those near them.

      The article sounds like an academician trying to gain or hold tenure.

      • Or trying to get more of that sweet grant money.

        In 2020, the Italian native became the first researcher to receive a $2 million federal grant from the National Science Foundation earmarked specifically for gun-related research.

        LOL I made the comment before I saw that in the article.

    • Are you looking for a job of your choice??? Can’t find the job you want even after visiting different websites? Considering your needs, we have organized our website with all categories of jobs, visit this link now….. https://uniquehiring9.blogspot.com

  2. In their defense they do mention “violence” as opposed to “gun violence” and questioning things like “how” and “peer pressure” sounds like they’re looking into that demographic which is most responsible for the violence. Must be that (racist) engineering and math he’s using.

    Expect them to get shut down or in no uncertain terms told to refocus their lens onto the old white guy living in Maine and how everything is his fault. Less math, more feels.

  3. Lots of BS mumbo-jumbo that like Astrology is designed to fool the weak minded and easily lead. Crazy people are by definition irrational and unpredictable, and anyone with an ounce of sense can see you lock up dangerous violent repeat offenders. Beyond that, no free society is ever totally safe, nor should it be.

    • 97% of the POG lie to anyone conducting BS “gun surveys”. Noone with testosterone uses the word “violence”

  4. So we started to look at other phenomena, and we collected data on media coverage of gun regulation and discovered a strong causality: People actually buy guns because after a mass shooting there is media coverage about potentially regulating guns. They may feel that their ability to purchase a gun can be curtailed and so gun sales go up.

    Mind. Blown.

    • And that genius insight only cost us 2 million bucks! They could have come to the TTAG comments section and gotten it for free.

    • Does undermine the gun-grabber narrative that people only buy guns because of the NRA etc. selling fear. Not that they’ll ever admit they’re wrong.

  5. The lack of any meaning coming from this persons mouth is totally in line with the majority of government funded “studies”. I need to come up with some BS proposed study and deliver a meaningless report filled with buzz words and trendy phrases. I’ll bet I could buy a really nice car when all was said and done.

  6. Maybe a study on how the over educated mind malfunctions and turns natural behavior into strange events that need disecting and studying. Lets study the abhorrent Marxist doctrine and the misery and ruin it causes. It can easily be studied here in our own country.

  7. Let’s dissect cara tabachnick and see what makes her/him/it an uppity busy body with a sneaky backdoor Gun Control agenda. The concocted label Gun Violence may sail over some folks heads but the reality is Violence is Violence.

    Never mind crunching numbers with the omnidirectional cara…Unless you are a Jet Li or a MMA expert you’ll need a firearm to stop Violence or Violence will stop you…and yours.

  8. “What is behind the decision-making and behavior of a mass shooter?”

    How about pushing policies that encourage the mental illness of insisting a child can just snap their fingers and be the opposite of the sex they were born with?

    Imagine the horror of finally realizing you were lied to, for the political expediency of others who don’t care at all about you, and now you have been permanently chemically and surgically maimed, mutilated into some hideous Frankenstein-like creature.

    Just close your eyes and imagine that happening to you.

    I find it’s no surprise at all that some would chose to violently lash out after an experience like that.

    Yeah, Leftist Scum ™, you really did that… 🙁

    • quote: Just close your eyes and imagine that happening to you.

      EEEEeeemmm POSS a bull.
      My parents raised me to understand I am created by a good God who cares for me, and made me the way He did for HIS purposes. They also tuaght me to be content with my life, to look upon the cares of others,
      thus it would be easier for me to “imagine” I could accomany my pet chicken as she flies to the moon and back in two weeks than to “imagine” God made some cosmic mistake and, though He made my grow all the approprate body parts pertaining to the male sex as He foirmed me in my Mother’ womb, He REALLY meant to provide me with the body parts pertaining to a female.

      I can be delided myself on some point, and faulted for that. But to take up the position that the God who made me is delusional is a step too far. I might b crazy, but HIM? Impossible.
      but that is what these inter sex ionalty bozos would have us believe.
      Hitler imagined himself a god over the people of gemrany, and was enabled by others to sort of approach such a position. Millions died because of is delusion. we all look back now and undrestand his sickness. WHY to we persist in accepting similar delusions amongst ourselves?

      • Because if we tell them to fuck off it can cost our jobs depending on location and employer.

  11. “At the state level, we are trying to understand what laws are successful in reducing violence.”

    No law that is unenforced will reduce anything. Only after a period of enforcing laws will you see a reduction in violence. The libtards know this they just don’t care. More chaos more control

  12. Mass shooters are NOT PART of the 2A “ecosystem” any more than child molesters are part of the family ecosystem.

    Linking depraved murderous rampaging criminals with peaceful law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their constitutionally protected civil rights is specious and disingenuous in the extreme. What more could we expect from legacy media and the tyranny-industrial complex that is desperate to disarm the population entirely?

  13. “What is behind the decision-making and behavior of a mass shooter?”

    Mental illness.

    Asked and answered, lets move on.

  14. Every SINGLE gun violence research program is nothing but another democrat shell company shoveling dollars from the US Treasury into their own pockets.

        • So more an objective researcher that focuses on violence than a “gun violence” researcher?

        • I get your point. Research is not objective unless the results of such research confirm our preconceptions.

          I will endeavor to adhere to the community hive-mind from here on.

        • The latter SAFE but then I know you knew that. Almost everyone using the term “gun violence” is lacking in objectivity and is pushing an agenda. Compared to to the good work that John lott does.

        • Not at all no name, it’s just that objective research often confirms a lot of what we tend to believe/observe. I often read through “gun violence” research and often find data collection that accidentally leaves out critical context that could shape a perception in less than accurate ways. For better or worse I have not found much besides Lott that begins to be objective let alone honest. There have been a handful of researchers I have reviewed that had fairly objective data sets but the spin on the results was ……… well expected for upstate NY that doesn’t have gangs just groups of associated people that do things together.

  15. I recommend a Venn diagram.

    Circle 1: “Stereotypical NRA member” counties with high legal gun ownership.

    Circle 2: High crime locations.

    Circle 3: Democrat-run cities. On second thought, don’t waste any ink drawing a third circle. Just draw a 3 somewhere inside Circle 2, which barely touches Circle 1.

    Where’s my Federal check?

  16. Professor Jaeger, could you tell us about your study?

    Yes, I plan to receive 2 million dollars in a government grant, keep 10%, pile the rest on a barbeque grill, cover it in gasoline and burn it. I will then conclude that Democrat Party policy positions may all be correct. Then I will submit my application for further study of the issue with a budget of 4 million dollars.

    • Meanwhile in Cook County sheriff Dart(Mr Hollyweird) pizzed & moaned about folks not turning in their gats after their FOID was void. After FOID was ruled unconstitutional years ago. I guarantee a bunch of these FOID felons can go east,west,north or south🙄

  17. Follow the link in the article to the CBS source, then to Porfiri’s published study.

    Fame through surprise: How fame-seeking mass shooters diversify their attacks

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2216972120#bibliography

    I have no problem with a researcher delving into this subject. I’m willing to look at the conclusions (unfortunately unavailable unless one pays for access) to analyze and compare his deductions and weigh them against other sources.

    I reviewed the list of “Supporting information” and “References” and was somewhat disappointed that studies done by Kleck, Lott and others was not included, but without knowing the full scope of the study I can’t criticize their omission.

    I don’t think that it benefits the POTG community to arbitrarily dismiss any research on violence committed by individuals using firearms. Studies that reach what we consider to be “obvious conclusions” (ex: mass shooters are motivated by fame) could be valuable in supporting arguments opposing “gun control” as a solution to violence.

    • It is becoming harder and harder to find good research. Science has been corrupted so badly for so long that most of it now is pure rubbish. Further, any studies that do support gun ownership will be denigrated, dismissed, canceled, and ignored. If this person does not include Lott, Kleck, etc then he is patently obviously a shill for the other side. He’s just going to conclude that gun control is safe and effective. It’s got what plants crave.

      • I’m not willing to draw that conclusion based on the limited amount of information available. It’s possible that research done by Kleck and Lott wasn’t relevant to this dataset. I don’t know.

    • “…and was somewhat disappointed that studies done by Kleck, Lott and others was not included,…”

      There’s a real good reason for that.

      As far as the Left is concerned, Lott has been (wrongly, as far as we are concerned) discredited, since *once* he gave himself a good review.

      They consider that proof his data cannot be trusted. But, that’s the Left for you, blithely ignoring any data that doesn’t fit their political agenda.

      There’s also something else going on here –

      The Left is currently engaged in publishing vast quantities of ‘studies’ supposedly debunking the early history of America. One recently professed that the ‘Wild West’ of the post Civil War era was no such thing, that gun control was common (it wasn’t) and those stories of everyone armed was just bullshit manufactured for the express purpose of selling, (wait for it) more guns.

      About 2-3 years ago TTAG reviewed that book, and we mercilessly mocked it. I cautioned this comment section about just dismissing it as crap. It’s quite deliberate, and is a key part of their long game of doing to guns what they did to to the cigarette companies. They fully intend on making us social pariahs for daring to exercise our civil rights. Which, as Gavin Newsome recently noted, in a sneering tone, that the 2A was a “so-called right.”

      We will see it again in the future, when the SCotUS balance tips in their favor, count on it. All of that will be used when Heller is overturned, by them.

      ‘Bruen’ was wonderful, and necessary. Don’t ever forget that they haven’t surrendered this war, not in the least little bit. Their goal is to make gun owners like cigarette smokers, something to sneer at… 🙁

  18. Real simple. Caucasian, Trump supporting, Lifetime NRA members are not murdering people.

    • Uhhhhhmmmm, don’t try to sell the idea that no Trump supporter, and no lifetime NRA members have ever committed murder. You can go with ‘rare incident’, but you went a little far there.

  19. My study/research produced a conclusion:

    I lived a peaceful and quiet life until democrats (communist party USA) took over the government and started demonizing everyone like me, threatening me and my family, calling us terrorists and blaming me for all the violence perpetrated in large cities by people not like me.

    My conclusion is, I must gear up and be prepared to protect me and mine in the not too distant future.

    Be Prepared !!!

  20. “Shall not be infringed” says it all, what about that do you not understand?

  21. At the state level, we are trying to understand what laws are successful in reducing violence.

    They always do this. They act like it’s some big mystery we’re trying to figure out. All you have to do is look back a few decades to see how we solved the problem of violent crime that had continued to increase since our previous cultural revolution in the 60s. Our last cultural revolution was in 2020. Instead of using what worked before, they’re intentionally going in the opposite direction, and then playing dumb when things “don’t work out.” That leads me to believe things are working out exactly as they’re intended to.

  22. When they discover that some of the areas racked by the worst violence committed with firearms are also the areas with the most stringent gun laws they’re going to have a very hard time squaring that and I promise they’re going to come up with some convoluted answer about how why the clear evidence that we can view isn’t what we’re actually seeing. The problem is not and never has been guns. The problem is that some people are willing to commit murder.

  24. I’m learning, although it’s a slow process.

    Certain topics elicit a hive-mind response: Research on subjects concerning guns and/or self-defense. The NRA. Law enforcement.

    I don’t think that a knee-jerk, closed-minded, echo-chamber reaction benefits our community — in fact, it could be a contributing factor to the negative perception that we have among those who are not part of our interest group.

    Is it just me?

    • Strong red flag laws ratchet up the legal ability to restrict firearm access for people exhibiting threatening behavior. “Fame seekers frequently make their intentions known prior to acting, making red flag laws crucial to prevent that sort of crime,” said Porfiri, who pointed out that increasing security at “normal” mass shooting locations will not stop fame seekers who expressly avoid committing their crimes in those places.
      https://phys.org/news/2023-05-fame-seeking-mass-shooters.html

      We spent $2 million so he could tell us we need more red flag laws? He also “discovered” that some mass shooters plan surprise attacks. Show me which part of his research is groundbreaking. If his research will save lives, then why isn’t it being widely distributed?

      From the CBS article:
      Editor’s note: This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

      What did they edit out? Do you trust these people to bring you anything outside of the official narrative? Do you think researchers will bite the hand that feeds them?

      • I am making effectively tirelessly $15k to $20k basically by doing coordinate work at domestic. Multi month once more i have made $45890 from this development. astounding and smooth to do work and standard pay from this can be stupefying. i have propose each last one of you to connect this advance right specifically as moo security and get than full time compensation through take after this affiliation.
        :
        ) AND Great Good fortune.:
        )
        HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com

    • no name,

      No, it’s not just you. We chide the gun grabbers and our resident Leftist/fascist idiots for quoting clearly biased studies and sources, we shouldn’t do the same thing. In my experience, most Leftist/fascist studies, and most anti-gun studies use questionable methodology, sloppy and/or cherry-picked data, and can be pretty easily dismissed as the lying propaganda they are . . . but it’s incumbent on us to look at the studies, check the methodology, sample sizes, sample selection, and sample bias (like dacian’s favorite lie about “red states having more gun violence” when any idiot can look at the numbers and clearly see that the rate of gun violence in those states is driven almost entirely by Dimocrat-run blue cities in those otherwise “red” states).

      We have to be better than that. If it’s a crappy study, an hour or two of review and digging into data sets should allow you to show that, but dismissing a study (as dacian is fond of doing) just because it reaches a conclusion you don’t like makes us no better the Leftists. We can’t allow ourselves to be that sloppy and closed-minded.

      • “We can’t allow ourselves to be that sloppy and closed-minded.”

        Sure we can, Lamp. Sure we can.

        • I haven’t seen you make a single valid point about this study, only some what ifs and maybes. All I see is you doing is accusing people of group think and being closed-minded. It seems like you’re arbitrarily dismissing them from your high horse.

        • OK, you got me, there. Perhaps a better formulation of my point would have been “We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be that sloppy and closed-minded.” If I were trying to be . . . erudite (HAH!! Gotcha!)

    • If you want to call like minded “hive minded” that’s on you. They aren’t the same thing

      • Let’s be precise — I said “closed-minded.” I characterized the response of some posters to particular topics as the “hive-mind.” I suggested that a discussion board as echo chamber might not best serve the community.

        Only one person agreed. I found that disappointing.

        • I was responding to your hive minded statement. Don’t fucking play word games please. Unless you want to become Miner 2.0

        • “I will endeavor to adhere to the community hive-mind from here on.”

          This was your statement that I was referring to. This is not who the people of this site are! We definitely are like minded but that isn’t even close to being hive minded.

          Is that precise enough for you?

        • I said what I said, muck. If you disagree, fine. But don’t try to tell me what I said.

          Explain why only one person agreed with my statement that it doesn’t do the community any good to be an echo chamber? And you can’t deny that certain subjects elicit a programmed response.

          You do it, too:
          “Read the article? Every other freaking word. “Gun violence””

          Nope. The phrase appears in the article 9 times — just because you don’t agree with its usage, doesn’t mean that the entire article/study/subject is invalid.

        • no name,

          Nice takedown. Also nice (and disappointing) to know I was the only one who agreed with you (I don’t always). If we are guilty of the same “confirmation bias” we accuse the Leftists of . . . we are hypocrites. I at least try not to be a hypocrite. Sometimes, I succeed. Best I can do.

  25. Motivations? Two primary and one tertiary.

    1. To defend myself, family and property against criminals, especially those criminals whose behavior is sanctioned by the state.

    2. To avoid the fate of others in a communist state, that of being shot in the back of the head, my hands bound behind me, while standing on the lip of a trench, after my liberty and property have been stolen from me.

    3. Guns are cool.

  26. Peer pressure plays no role in my decision(s) to buy another gun. Lust? Yeah well, that I cannot deny.

  27. My first thought was what the hells a firearm ecosystem. Is it where all the firearms live together or what

      • muckraker,

        You’d be surprised. The other day I came across my Kimber 1911 and my Glock 34 engaged in an intense shoot-out (the 34 had more capacity, but the 1911 won on points). Always wondered why I never had as much ammunition as I thought I did.

  28. He needs more data to discover that 54% of gun deaths are suicides.

    He needs more data to discover that almost all the rest are black-on-black and brown-on-brown homicides that are not mass-shootings as we conventionally define that term.

    He needs more data to discover that almost all the rest are handgun-homicides, not assault weapons homicides.

    He needs more data to discover that those mass shootings almost always occur in gun-free zones.

    He wants to know exactly how guns get from point of first retail sale to the point of use in a crime. But won’t urge vigorous prosecution of perpetrators of actual gun violence.

    He is clearly not interested in solving the problem of gun violence. He is interested in advancing gun control

  29. “What is behind the decision-making and behavior of a mass shooter?”

    That question is equivalent to “What is behind the decision-making and behavior of a rabid dog?”

    Don’t know, don’t much care. The mad dog must be dealt with, or we’ll have an epidemic of rabies. Likewise, the mass shooter must be dealt with, or there will be many more dead people.

    I know that you don’t properly deal with a mass shooter by giving him weeks of infamy on all the public media, while trying to sympathize and empathize with him, as Democrats have done recently. You blow him into eternity, you dig a hole, and roll him in it, then you go on about your life. Just like you do with a mad dog.

  30. Ecosystem of firearms? My collection of firearms has grown over the years so there could be something to it. As for gun violence, not one of my guns have committed an act of violence. You would think at least 1 of them would have done something some time in the last several decades I’ve been collecting. Either I have a bunch of lazy guns or guns don’t cause violence nor commit crimes on their own.
    As for the NRA crap, other than the current leadership running the thing, I don’t have an issue with them. What I have to as is exactly how does the NRA promote violence or criminal activity? They don’t manufacture firearms, nor market them. Nor do they encourage criminal activity. That would be from political interests and Pro criminal policies of a certain party.

  31. this phrase “We have to understand how policies shape individual behavior” is proof that they are Nazi’s… you’re policies don’t shape my behavior-never have never will.. my behavior is based on my morals, ethics and God… so libetard-democrats can p!$$ off.

    • In general, certain behaviors can be incentivized. For instance, they incentivize theft when they tell people they won’t prosecute it. If you get enough tickets, you’ll be motivated to watch your speed.

      • Dude,

        Or we can incentivize single motherhood in the impoverished portion of the community by making your next welfare check dependent on NOT marrying the baby-daddy. Worked for LBJ.

  32. Now we know why the federal budget is out of control.

    He should study racial demographics to determine which race causes more deaths and then go onto rape of White and Latino women by a certain demographic.

    He’s a pandering idiot. If he’s not looking at race he is just grant seeking. I predict he’ll need more money to continue his research.

Comments are closed.