Gun Violence Archive; Killers (of Any Critiques on Their Methodology)

Gun Violence Archive recently absorbed the propaganda website Mass Shooting Tracker at the start of 2016. I began to look through some of their data to see how they compared to Mass Shooting Tracker. At first glance, it appeared they fixed a few of the notorious discrepancies that I have previously highlighted in the definition of “mass shooting,” which I thought might diminish some of the false data that was being pitched to the public. Half of a chapter of my book addresses Mass Shooting Tracker’s propaganda specifically, so I wanted to try to update my book accordingly…maybe even reporting the problem has now been resolved. I first sent the following email to Gun Violence Archive but received no response:

Hi,

I just noticed your “merger” of sorts. Hopefully these statistics will now be more credible as your newly acquired partner was horribly exacerbating the problem. Of course now I’ll have to edit out the half of a chapter entirely discrediting everything on their entire site before publication, but I’d rather the people be more accurately informed than continue to be fed propaganda which I then have to discredit. For too long the propaganda from both sides has been confusing this debate and Mass Shooting Tracker became a primary source of fear mongering and distorted data.

So far, reading your General Methodology page, I’m somewhat optimistic your new partnership will be providing substantially more accurate data. I see that a lot of the problems with MST appear to be gone, but I can’t clearly distinguish what your position is on including police officers accidentally shooting bystanders when calculating the injured in mass shootings; are you counting those to determine the required quantity of 4 shot or do those fall exclusively under “officer involved shootings?” In other places, it does appear you’re focusing more on intent of an actual shooter(s) than merely blaming any gun involved but there is a bit of ambiguity.

I’m sincerely trying to find at least one organization in this mess I can actually support…maybe you will finally be it. Although I did immediately pull up an article under 2016 mass shootings (http://abc13.com/news/four-wounded-by-gunfire-after-new-years-party/1143166/) that only has 3 confirmed victims (honestly, it doesn’t even confirm the injuries were gunshots, but I won’t split hairs on that one) and regarding the fourth states; “They are investigating the possibility that another person discovered wounded nearby on Antoine could also be related to the same scene.” That is NOT 4 confirmed people shot at the event…it’s 3 people and a “guess” that a 4th “might” have been related to the shooting. That’s just bad data! A single piece of bad data and your credibility entirely falls apart. The fact that you like Bloomberg funded The Trace.com on Facebook squelches my optimism some as well, as they just regurgitate the anti-gun propaganda without evaluation while trying to pitch themselves as unbiased.

Best Regards,

Doug Hawk

I later saw a post on their Facebook page showing two “mass shootings” already for 2016, the event I previously referenced was one of the two claimed on their website represented on this list. I then had an interesting exchange with them. I asked some questions about their process and pointed out that the specific mass shooting claimed to have occurred in 2016 didn’t appear to fit their own definition, citing alternate news sources. Apparently they didn’t like my questions or comments because they deleted them and felt compelled to go so far as to block me from their Facebook page. Here is a copy of the full exchange on the thread before they deleted the comments, and then shows their comment after deletion. I think the action speaks volumes about the intent of their organization…but you be the judge:

Gun Violence Archive:
GVA Summary Ledger January 1 – January 6

For always up to the hour summaries, full details of all incidents and our fully searchable database, go to gunviolencearchive.org

I appreciate your visits and propagating our data. We strive to make it right and it is always 100% provable. Thanks

Doug Hawk:
If they are 100% provable, could you please do me a favor and prove the claimed mass shooting cited above from January 1, 2016 at 6500 block of TC Jester had four victims, because the article you cite suggests 3 people were shot and is merely “guessing” that a fourth injury from another location “might” be related to this shooting. Have you confirmed the fourth person is from the same shooting, making this fit your definition for a mass shooting, or is the fourth victim still questionable?

this article suggests that only 2 people were hit by gunfire at that location. Any other injuries in the general area have not been linked. In this report, even in all locations, only 3 people appear to have been shot. http://www.fox26houston.com/news/67560754-story

A third basically says 4 people were shot in northwest Houston and police do not know if they are connected: http://www.click2houston.com/news/police-investigate-double-shooting-in-northwest-houston

How are you deciding which news report is correct?

Gun Violence Archive:
When there is conflict in numbers [which is seldom] we may look at a dozen or more sources to determine what happened, to whom and where. We then have a conversation between several researchers and log a conclusion based on the best available data.

As time passes we have the opportunity to see other data [sometimes weeks later] that either corroborates or questions our original decisions. At those points we either keep the classification or remove it.

Last year there was an incident where five were listed as wounded in a shooting at a hotel lobby. All sources used pretty much the same verbiage. Later, when we got the police report we saw that 2 were shot, two were cut by marble shrapnel and one ran through a glass door getting away. We removed three victims from the incident report and changed the designation.

Shorter answer…we have processes in place to address this sort of thing.

Doug Hawk:
When it comes to preserving the integrity of credible data, would it not be best to confirm the data first and then report it after confirmation…as opposed to reporting speculative information to the public prematurely and then having to redact the information sometimes weeks later? That clearly skews the bias towards more mass shootings on a running basis and confuses the public.

If you truly want to provide credible statistics and not merely try to present as many mass shootings as possible as quickly as possible creating a biased perspective, that would be the appropriate path. This particular case clearly does not appear to be a mass shooting, yet there it is telling the public there was one.

In this particular case, how then did you decide specifically that this event was a mass shooting and 4 people were shot under the scope of the same event in spite of the news reports? If you are “guessing” at data, it ceases to be credible regardless of how many researchers are “guessing” that 4 people were shot. Even the police directly investigating the shootings, with complete details of the cases not known by the media, have not concluded they are related…what do your researchers know that the police don’t? Your process should not be a secret, if we are to evaluate the credibility of the data set.

I’m sincerely not trying to be antagonistic, but you claim these are 100% provable…and yet your own response suggests a method that clearly states they are not proven. Your conversation between several researchers describes evaluations of probability and not evaluations of proof. Opinions and facts are two different things. It is a good thing our legal system does not work that way.

I’ve also gone through a number of your events at this point, and cross referenced them with other news reports. Some are clearly unquestionable mass shootings by your definition, but saying that conflicts in the media reports are “seldom” appears to be more puffery than accurate.

I do appreciate your reply though, I think I have a better understanding of both the intent and accuracy of your organization’s data.

[At this point they deleted my comments and blocked me from their page, posting the following:]

Gun Violence Archive:
Some comments removed because someone didn’t like our process…so it goes.

What do you think? Should this be the response of an organization who is providing statistics on life and death scenarios regarding gun violence to the general public? Statistics which are used to create legislation and now to support Executive Orders? Should we not be allowed to question the methodology they use in creating their data or validating their data set? I asked a few valid questions and made a few valid statements, and the response was to delete my comments and block me from their Facebook page. How is that not representative of clear intent to provide biased data with no checks and balances? If they truly wanted to provide accurate and unbiased data to the public, my comments should have been highly welcomed, and not hidden from public view while banning me from ever commenting on their page. Isn’t the “what do you have to hide?” argument the same one the anti-gun lobby makes in regards to people who do not want gun control measures?

If the Second Amendment, or even an unbiased gun control debate based upon sound logic and facts is important to you, then please help spread an awareness of the defensive attitude of Gun Violence Archive, such that the people cease to fall prey to fallacious statistics designed to create emotional over-reaction.

Someone will surely say I’m making this up. The screenshots follow.

Original Thread:

Gun Violence Archive comments after deletion:

www.treatiseon2ndamendment.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/treatiseon2ndamendment
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Treatise2ndAmdt