Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:
1 hour ago, EYLive said:

Solution to gun violence: MORE GUNS!!! 
Nice logic. No wonder this country's turning into a craphole.

Your understanding of what we are proposing is very, very far off.

 

2 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

I disagree and have stated so many times.  Most of the schools around me already have security guards, so there's no additional manpower. 

So all the guards that today do not have guns should in the future have guns but this will not result in more guns.

In addition there will be places that do not have guards that needs both, but still this will (presumably magically) not result in more guns.

Right.

Interesting.

Have a nice day 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stealthycat

    3808

  • KCitons

    2840

  • KarmaPolice

    1614

  • -fish-

    1078

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's TOTALLY the title of the thread.  Here's why:  Over the last year or so I finally figured out that we don't actually care about gun violence.  When I say "we" I mean everyone, generally.  But als

So I have never gotten too deep into gun conversations here, mostly because guns are as close to religion in the US as you can get. I'm decidedly pro 2nd Amendment, but I also recognize that was

I would love to see civil and criminal liability attached to gun owners as well as shooters. If your gun is used in the commission of a crime, you're responsible unless you can show that the gun was o

5 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Innovative, outside the box thinking.  I wish to subscribe to your blog.

I think we're already starting on an inexorable path away from the big centralized community school. Technology will change the way we need and utilize infrastructure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

private schools are not targeted

there are many reasons as to why ..... but do you think wealthy people don't have security for their kids and the schools they attend better secured than regular blue collar America public schools?

I think that's a large part of it

in most cases, criminal and evil people are cowards - they don't attack strong people who will fight back, they don't confront face to face on equal terms. gun free schools are a magnet 

my wife raises poultry from time to time .....  a poultry house with no doors, no fencing, no security and varmints will kill them all in a weeks time

a poultry house with doors and fencing is much better - but they dig through and other ways kill your birds too

you put a dog in the fenced in area with the house in there ? NEVER will you lose a bird. Varmints see the "armed security" and it simply isn't worth risking it

 

you kinda of see the analogy there

 

 

 

I do, for the strength it has.   That said, and because my mind easily wanders, I wonder what would happen if the dog was an egg sucking dog, but that is a discussion for another time, perhaps.  Do not let my immaturity derail the conversation.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that needs solved then 

we are talking about our children here, money to pay a security staff should be really high on the list of importance, above your sports coaches, band directors and extra curricular things  IMO

 

I think I would want an actuary or an experienced risk manager to weigh in on the risk and the cost benefit analysis before I would automatically agree with your position here.  I like some data when I might be tempted to make and emotional decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Wait, I thought you already knew the answers to all this. You're saying you don't even know? Its your anecdotal fantasy that more guns in school will prevent school shootings, you support it.

FBI definition of mass public shooting is 4 or more dead and the shooting is not the result of another crime (gang or drug violence or robbery).  ie targeting people to kill for the sake of killing them.  Public, in this scenario, includes malls, businesses, schools, churches, health care facilities, government public places (post offices, etc.).  From 1950 to 2016 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free zones".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I do, for the strength it has.   That said, ad because my mind easily wanders I wonder what would happen if thedog wa an egg sucking dog, but that is a discussion for another time, perhaps.  Do not let my immaturity derail the conversation.

I know a dog that attacked a chicken. Didn't end so well for the chicken

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

I stopped looking after finding like 7 or 8 instances of shootings at private schools just in the last 8 years, quitting in the middle of 2014 or so.

Next.

Damn, facts can be inconvenient.  That's why I so seldom make them up.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, msommer said:

 

So all the guards that today do not have guns should in the future have guns but this will not result in more guns.

In addition there will be places that do not have guards that needs both, but still this will (presumably magically) not result in more guns.

Right.

Interesting.

Have a nice day 

 

You are clearly misrepresenting what I am saying as are other posters.  I've already addressed this with you 3 pages ago that different situations call for different measures-many of which absolutely don't call for more guns.  You didn't have anything productive to say then, you don't now.  You're being obtuse.  Not surprising.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Schools for the super rich have security to prevent kidnappings, not school shootings. Regular private schools don’t have armed security

2) The kinds of parents that leave guns and ammo hanging around for their teens to steal probably aren’t sending their kids to private school

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, randall146 said:

Stealth - You’ve mentioned your son’s responsible use of guns previously. Do you think he should carry a gun at school?

I would hope not.  Because no one, literally no one is proposing that students or teachers or administrators carry guns on campus.  Don't really know why it always goes right to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

I would hope not.  Because no one, literally no one is proposing that students or teachers or administrators carry guns on campus.  Don't really know why it always goes right to that.

I wasn’t asking about policy, and I wasn’t asking you 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, randall146 said:

I wasn’t asking about policy, and I wasn’t asking you 

I'm answering you because every time I suggest that a responsible, already on staff, security guard should potentially be armed, the response is something along the lines of "oh, I guess the janitor should be able to carry an AR-15, right?"  It seemed like that was what you were doing.  apologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

FBI definition of mass public shooting is 4 or more dead and the shooting is not the result of another crime (gang or drug violence or robbery).  ie targeting people to kill for the sake of killing them.  Public, in this scenario, includes malls, businesses, schools, churches, health care facilities, government public places (post offices, etc.).  From 1950 to 2016 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free zones".  

I get different information from sources I can find:

Quote

analysis of data in FBI and media reports over a nearly seven-year period shows that only 13 percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 took place entirely in public spaces that had been deemed gun-free zones, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which works to tighten gun laws. 

Here's another interesting article:

Quote

Researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Stanford University, and the University of Massachusetts Boston aimed to determine whether concealed carry on college campuses would reduce or increase violence. Because campus carry is a relatively new phenomenon, and there exists so little data on its public safety impact, the academics examined previously published research on rampage shootings in public spaces. 

The study’s authors found that the vast majority [84%] of high-casualty mass shootings have happened in places where guns are allowed, or at least not explicitly banned....

The study draws from research conducted by one of its authors, Louis Klarevas, who in his book, Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings, examined 111 shootings between 1966 to 2015 that left six or more people dead. Of these gun massacres, 93 occurred in gun-allowing zones, or places where there is no evidence that civilian guns are banned. 

Klarevas’s research also found that armed civilians almost never prevent or stop rampage attacks — no matter where they occur. 

“Successful civilian uses of guns to stop a mass shooting were incredibly rare and about as common as armed civilians being shot while attempting to respond to mass shooting incidents,” the report reads. 

The findings are consistent with a 2013 FBI study of 160 active shootings between 2000 and 2013. The review unearthed a single attack that was stopped by an armed civilian — a U.S. Marine. But 13 percent of those shootings were interrupted by unarmed civilians, the FBI found.

A much broader examination of defensive gun use comes from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey. The survey finds that about 100,000 people report using a gun in self-defense each year, affecting just less than 1 percent of all violent crime victimizations. One analysis of the NCVS results found no advantage to defensive gun use over other methods of self-defense.

The Johns Hopkins study warns that introducing more guns on campus could have the unintended consequence of risking the safety of the students and faculty that gun-rights supporters say they are there to protect. Research shows that college students are at an increased risk for suicide and prone to impulsive behavior. One report, cited by the authors, found that firearms were the most common means of suicide among males, accounting for for almost a third of suicides by college students of that demographic. College students are also susceptible to risky behaviors — such as alcohol or drug abuse — which have strong associations with increased levels of violence.

Who to believe, the NRA, or several independent researchers and government agencies? It's a puzzle I tell ya.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

Hmm, I get different information from sources I can find:

Here's another interesting article:

Hmmmmmm indeed. Who to believe, the NRA, or several independent researchers and government agencies? It's a puzzle I tell ya.

Right, those figures count drive by shootings, gang wars and shootings at home or in the process of another crime as mass shootings.  Which are not applicable to the conversation we are having.  Thanks though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I think we're already starting on an inexorable path away from the big centralized community school. Technology will change the way we need and utilize infrastructure.

I think we probably need schools from a socialization aspect - but my daughter took an on-line high school class last summer, and it was a great learning experience.  She was able to move quickly through some areas and take more time when she needed on other areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

Right, those figures count drive by shootings, gang wars and shootings at home or in the process of another crime as mass shootings.  Which are not applicable to the conversation we are having.  Thanks though.

The conversation is about what happens in gun free zones. The stats I gave address that, frankly in a more realistic way than your cherry picked stat formulated for you by the NRA. Thanks though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think we probably need schools from a socialization aspect - but my daughter took an on-line high school class last summer, and it was a great learning experience.  She was able to move quickly through some areas and take more time when she needed on other areas.

When they get rid of schools the kids can socialize at church or the gun club

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

What do you suggest?

My community addressed this immediately post-Columbine.  We have School Resource Officers (Fully commissioned and trained Police Officers) at each High School and at each Junior High School unless they share a campus then we may have only one assigned to both.  We also have School Resource Officers assigned one to every three elementary schools and they rotate their time through them.  Additionally we have report writing substations within the schools where Officers may choose to write up reports even when they are wholly unrelated to the schools, believing that mere presence has deterrence value. (why not have them write things up in a warm building instead of on their MDT's in their car at a Dunkin Donuts?)

These School Resource Officers undergo special training from the Gang Detail and from SWAT. The training concentrates on active shooter scenarios, clearing rooms, shoot and don't shoot scenarios, emergency first aid, and interacting with hostile and antagonistic  persons and groups. We hope they learn to identify trouble and how to clear rooms safely in a crowded environment. Additionally we give them 20 hours of psychological training on interacting with adolescents and they spend  20 hours running through shoot/don't shoot scenarios on the simulator with another ten hours at our training facility. Frankly they are probably woefully inadequately trained for a mass shooting event where children are running helter skelter and information is quickly evolving.  Identifying and disabling a shooter in a building full of children is a tricky proposition.  still, we have done what we can with the resources available.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

The conversation is about what happens in gun free zones. The stats I gave address that, frankly in a more realistic way than your cherry picked stat formulated for you by the NRA. Thanks though.

No they don't.  They include gang drive by shootings and in the commission of robberies.  We are talking about school shootings.  They are different.  The stats you gave address shootings outside the realm of what we are talking about.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

FBI definition of mass public shooting is 4 or more dead and the shooting is not the result of another crime (gang or drug violence or robbery).  ie targeting people to kill for the sake of killing them.  Public, in this scenario, includes malls, businesses, schools, churches, health care facilities, government public places (post offices, etc.).  From 1950 to 2016 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free zones".  

What percentage of all malls, businesses, schools, churches, health care facilities and government buildings are gun-free zones?  Is it more or less than 98.4%?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

What percentage of all malls, businesses, schools, churches, health care facilities and government buildings are gun-free zones?  Is it more or less than 98.4%?

Unless I'm mistaken all school zones (within 1000 feet of the grounds of a public school) are gun free zones.  As are all Government buildings.  No idea on businesses or malls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

No they don't.  They include gang drive by shootings and in the commission of robberies.  We are talking about school shootings.  They are different.  The stats you gave address shootings outside the realm of what we are talking about.  

The other guy was talking about gun free zones. The stat you gave (From 1950 to 2016 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free zones" - your words) says gun free zones. The stats I gave address gun free zones. Seems you have a muddled understanding of what you're asserting. More importantly the distinction you're trying to make is irrelevant even to the topic you claim. If your assertion is that having more guns on campus would result in less shootings on campus, there should be a correlation in number of shootings in gun-free campuses vs. guns allowed campuses regardless of the motive for the shooting or the amount of people killed in a given incident. The stats show no such correlation at best, the opposite correlation at worse. 

You're parroting a sad attempt to mince words (quibbling about the application and definition of the term "mass shooting") and come to a conclusion you want as a result. The data doesn't back you up.

 

Edited by Gr00vus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

Unless I'm mistaken all school zones (within 1000 feet of the grounds of a public school) are gun free zones.  As are all Government buildings.  No idea on businesses or malls.

So we have zero context for the statistic you presented. It could be that shootings are less likely in gun free zones, could be more likely.  We don't know.

Also I noticed you used data going back to 1960, which is misleading since the right to carry is a relatively recent phenomenon. Pretty much all of America was a gun-free zone back in the day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Unless I'm mistaken all school zones (within 1000 feet of the grounds of a public school) are gun free zones.  As are all Government buildings.  No idea on businesses or malls.

I would be fascinated to learn that all school zones are gun free, though I believe many purport to be, but all?  As for government buidings I can asure you that this is not so though certainly many are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I would be fascinated to learn that all school zones are gun free, though I believe many purport to be, but all?  As for government buidings I can asure you that this is not so though certainly many are.

Again, it's illegal to conceal carry a weapon or for a citizen to have a gun on them within 1000 feet of any public school. Also, I'm not aware of any public buildings such as courthouses, administration buildings, post office, etc, that citizens are allowed to have a handgun on them. Some of these government buildings have armed guards of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

So we have zero context for the statistic you presented. It could be that shootings are less likely in gun free zones, could be more likely.  We don't know.

Also I noticed you used data going back to 1960, which is misleading since the right to carry is a relatively recent phenomenon. Pretty much all of America was a gun-free zone back in the day.

 We don't have zero context.   It would be impossible to ascertain what percentage of all businesses are gun free zones. We do know however that all schools are gone free zones. And we do know that the vast majority of these mas shootings, Albeit not all of them, are targeted at public schools. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

The biggest determining factor for how much security a school has is what kind of problems they have with violence, drugs, weapons. My HS might have 3 or 4 fist fights all year. Paying top dollar for an armed officer for the 1 in a million chance a random shooter enters the building seems extreme. By that thought process, every building that the public might enter should be required to have an armed guard: the movie theater, Applebees, etc. 

Is this much different than our "war on terror'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

 We don't have zero context.   It would be impossible to ascertain what percentage of all businesses are gun free zones. We do know however that all schools are gone free zones. And we do know that the vast majority of these mas shootings, Albeit not all of them, are targeted at public schools. 

Do you think most school shootings are perpetrated because the shooter knows that schools are "gun free zones"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

The other guy was talking about gun free zones. The stat you gave (From 1950 to 2016 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free zones" - your words) says gun free zones. The stats I gave address gun free zones. Seems you have a muddled understanding of what you're asserting. More importantly the distinction you're trying to make is irrelevant even to the topic you claim. If your assertion is that having more guns on campus would result in less shootings on campus, there should be a correlation in number of shootings in gun-free campuses vs. guns allowed campuses regardless of the motive for the shooting or the amount of people killed in a given incident. The stats show no such correlation at best, the opposite correlation at worse. 

You're parroting a sad attempt to mince words (quibbling about the application and definition of the term "mass shooting") and come to a conclusion you want as a result. The data doesn't back you up.

 

Targeted mass shootings where the only goal is for the shooter to kill as many people as possible. I'm not sure what you don't understand But again, the shootings involved in the numbers that you're giving include gang shootings drive-bys, robberies etc. These are not applicable to Targeted mass shootings where the only goal is for the shooter to kill as many people as possible. I'm not sure what you don't understand

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

 We don't have zero context.   It would be impossible to ascertain what percentage of all businesses are gun free zones. We do know however that all schools are gone free zones. And we do know that the vast majority of these mas shootings, Albeit not all of them, are targeted at public schools. 

But without knowing whether 98.4% is higher or lower than the total number of gun-free malls, schools, etc. spread out over the period from 1960-present we have zero evidence of a correlation, let alone a causal connection.

If you're not following me, perhaps I can interest you in my rock?  It keeps tigers away.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McJose said:

Do you think most school shootings are perpetrated because the shooter knows that schools are "gun free zones"?

 Well there is no way to understand the motives of these shooters, I think that that is a fair guess. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible, so of course they are going to go where they will  Face the least amount of resistance. Otherwise we would probably see more shootings at gun shows, police stations etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

But without knowing whether 98.4% is higher or lower than the total number of malls, schools, etc. we have zero evidence of a correlation, let alone a causal connection.

If you're not following me, perhaps I can interest you in my rock?  It keeps tigers away.

While I appreciate the smarminess in your response I'm not interested.

 

I guess you just assumed that the reason these people target schools and gun free zone's is coincidence? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

 Well there is no way to understand the motives of these shooters, I think that that is a fair guess. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible, so of course they are going to go where they will  Face the least amount of resistance. Otherwise we would probably see more shootings at gun shows, police stations etc. 

Yeah, it's probably because they're gun-free zones.  Not because the shooters often have a connection to the school or anything.  Totally a fair guess.

Jesus H Christ.  I'm thinking about quitting my job and becoming a full-time anti-tiger rock retailer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Targeted mass shootings where the only goal is for the shooter to kill as many people as possible. I'm not sure what you don't understand But again, the shootings involved in the numbers that you're giving include gang shootings drive-bys, robberies etc. These are not applicable to Targeted mass shootings where the only goal is for the shooter to kill as many people as possible. I'm not sure what you don't understand

I don't understand where I intimated there's something I don't understand. I understand perfectly well, you've tried to subtly change the conversation from shootings to the NRA's narrowly defined notion of mass shootings and gun free zones. I don't particularly care about the deaths/injuries per incident or motivation behind school shootings - they're still school shootings. Your (well, more accurately the NRA's) attempt to make some arbitrary distinction about the nature of the school shootings and then back out a statistic that supports a contention that more armed people on campus is disingenuous.

Edited by Gr00vus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

Yeah, it's probably because they're gun-free zones.  Not because the shooters often have a connection to the school or anything.  Totally a fair guess.

Jesus H Christ.  I'm thinking about quitting my job and becoming a full-time anti-tiger rock retailer.

So the fact that they can get off hundreds of rounds without any one stopping them in any quick amount of time has no bearing on their thought process? Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

I don't understand where you intimated there's something I don't understand. I understand perfectly well, you've tried to subtly change the conversation from shootings to the NRA's narrowly defined notion of mass shootings and gun free zones. I don't particularly care about the deaths/injuries per incident or motivation behind school shootings - they're still school shootings. Your (well, more accurately the NRA's) attempt to make some arbitrary distinction about the nature of the school shootings and then back out a statistic that supports a contention that more armed people on campus is disingenuous.

It's not the NRAs definition, it's the FBIs

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a mass shooter's main motivation was body count, why aren't there more shootings at sporting events? Their scores could really skyrocket!

Here's the wikipedia list of school shootings.  Pick a random sampling and see if you notice a common feature. SPOILER ALERT:  the shooters are often students or recently graduated former students who harbor some sort of irrational ill will towards the place or its student body. We're not talking about rational actors here.  If we were they wouldn't be shooting a bunch of people for no reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

True. The application of the definition with the intent to mislead, that's the NRA's. Sorry about that.

 Sorry, I really don't understand what your point is. Including drive-by shootings in mass shootings is not applicable to this conversation. We're talking about arming a guard at a school. That would have no impact on anything other than school shootings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

So the fact that they can get off hundreds of rounds without any one stopping them in any quick amount of time has no bearing on their thought process? Got it.

I have no idea and neither do you (I hope). That's the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

If a mass shooter's main motivation was body count, why aren't there more shootings at sporting events? Their scores could really skyrocket!

Here's the wikipedia list of school shootings.  Pick a random sampling and see if you notice a common feature. SPOILER ALERT:  the shooters are often students or recently graduated former students who harbor some sort of irrational ill will towards the place or its student body. We're not talking about rational actors here.  If we were they wouldn't be shooting a bunch of people for no reason.

  Probably because they have Pat Downs, metal detectors, and armed guards at all sporting events. Just a hunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

I have no idea and neither do you (I hope). That's the point.

 But you can use your brain right? You can logically assume that a person that wants to do as much damage as possible will go to a place that they will get the least amount of resistance. Right? This isn't rocket science or anything hard to ascertain.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

 Sorry, I really don't understand what your point is. Including drive-by shootings in mass shootings is not applicable to this conversation. We're talking about arming a guard at a school. That would have no impact on anything other than school shootings. 

No, you just don't want to admit understanding. That's o.k. your argument is pretty lousy.

We're talking about school shootings. You want to talk about a narrowly defined subset (mass shootings that don't stem from a particular set of motives) of school shootings and base solutions to the overall problem on your cherry picked statistical sample. That's disingenuous. Beyond that, the application of statistical analysis you're basing your conclusion on is flawed as @TobiasFunke has explained. Understand now?

Edited by Gr00vus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

 But you can use your brain right? You can logically assume that a person that wants to do as much damage as possible will go to a place that they will get the least amount of resistance. Right? This isn't rocket science or anything hard to ascertain.  

 

4 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

SPOILER ALERT:  the shooters are often students or recently graduated former students who harbor some sort of irrational ill will towards the place or its student body.

It's almost as if you chose to ignore this part of the post

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

 

It's almost as if you chose to ignore this part of the post

Both things can be true I'm sure they often are. That doesn't negate the fact that they know the can do the most damage at that school. In fact most of those cases, it probably makes it even more easy for them to circumvent what little security is there, because they already know the surroundings. Both things can be true

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

No, you just don't want to admit understanding. That's o.k. your argument is pretty lousy.

We're talking about school shootings. You want to talk about a narrowly defined subset (mass shootings that don't stem from a particular set of motives) of school shootings and base solutions to the overall problem on your cherry picked statistical sample. That's disingenuous. Beyond that, the application of statistical analysis you're basing your conclusion on is flawed as @TobiasFunke has explained. Understand now?

 When you take the entirety of mass shootings, and you subtract out shooting involved in things like robberies, gang violence, drug wars, etc. as well as domestiv shootings, You are left with all the other gun free zone shootings. That is what I am talking about. That is where the 98% comes from.   This is not solely encompass only school shootings, but it narrows it down quite a bit. And it focuses on the issue that we are talking about. It's not being disingenuous it's trying to get to the closest the statistical representation of  mass shootings that occur at places like schools, that our gun free zones

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...