In the wake of the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College on Thursday, here are some possibly interesting data.

Christopher Ingraham reports that, as of October 1, we have had 294 mass shootings in this country in the 274 days of 2015. A mass shooting is defined as one in which four or more people are shot (but not necessarily killed), including possibly the shooter.

The number of mass shootings has increased in recent years. This chart tabulates active shooter incidents, defined (by the FBI) as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.”

The U. S. homicide rate is greater than in any country at a similar level of economic development.  However, it is lower than in many less developed countries such as Mexico and South Africa. (Canada is in red in the chart because the data come from the Canadian government.)

Gun laws work. In spite of the narrow range of such laws, states with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths. Here’s the scatterplot of the positive correlation between strength of gun laws and state violence rank. (A high rank means less violence.)

And here’s a state by state comparison.

Support for gun control laws has declined during most of this century and is now below 50%.

Support for gun control is largely unaffected by recent mass shootings. This is probably because a highly publicized mass shooting carries a mixed message. To some, it implies that we must control access to firearms, but to others it implies that we need more guns to protect ourselves.

The Washington Post reprinted a chapter by former Supreme John Paul Stevens from his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. In “The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment,” he argues that it should be changed to read as follows (Stevens’ five words are in bold):

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

Stevens argues that this change would more accurately reflect the intentions of the Bill of Rights’ authors.

Speaking of favorite sports, another is reading news reports of the day after a mass shooting to determine whose “side” the shooter was on. (Come on, admit it. We all do it.) Conservatives are hoping the shooter will be a member of a minority group and/or a liberal, while progressives are rooting for a white Tea Party sympathizer. It looks like the Oregon shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, has something for everyone. He identifies as “mixed-race.” (His mother is black and his father is British.) In spite of this, his social media profile identifies him as a white supremicist, and in spite of this, he showed a hatred of Christians. (He killed Christians, while non-Christians were “only” shot in the legs.) Congratulations to partisans of both sides.