Pro-gun myths busted

[BraveUlysses]

The definition of mass killing is that people were shot. This includes the assumption that the shooter wasn't stopped.

First, you complain that mother jones made up the determination for what constitutes a mass killing for their analysis. I pointed out the FBI uses a similar definition but with a lower number for determining this distinction. And now you proceed to redefine it as you please.

Furthermore, the author decided for this study that the definition is:

What remains in the data set are rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public, began firing at random people, and was forcibly stopped.

Obviously not very encompassing and done for a specific reason.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

He's intentionally removing incidents (70% of his initial sample base) so that he can arrive at a foregone conclusion.

From your link (which actually critiqued the link I posted):

I don't see anything about shitty math. You posted something that agreed with what I said.

You couldn't be arsed to cite your sources, so I had to go your source information.

I don't agree with the conclusion of the article and I don't think the study presents any meaningful conclusion because the data has been cherry picked to reach a particular conclusion.

Fourteen incidents were stopped by police with a total of 200 dead. That comes to 14.3 murdered victims per incident. Fifteen incidents were stopped by bystanders with a total of 35 dead. That comes to 2.3 murdered victims per incident.

Starting with a list of 100 events, it then whittled down to 29 incidents for determining that 14.3 vs 2.3 "statistic."

You wouldn't accept such poor standards if the conclusion was pro-gun control, so you shouldn't accept them here.

[CorvallisBMW]

Cars kill people to.

Yes but you have to be licensed, trained and insured to drive one, because they're dangerous is used improperly. How are guns any different?

[CorvallisBMW]

Guns don't kill people, oh wait... yes they do.

Yep. And here's more proof.

On 12/14/12, Adam Lanza shot 26 people at Sandy Hook elementary, killing all 26 and wounding 0.

On that same exact day, Min Yongjun stabbed 24 people at Chenpeng Village Primary School, wounding 24 and killing 0.

Still think guns don't kill people? There are mentally disturbed people in every city in every country in the world. The difference between the US and every other country is that we give them assault rifles.

[Liquidity]

I did not expect to see that texas is only half way up that chart in % of gun ownership

[evandael]

We don't blame alcohol for drunk drives. Or car manufactures for car accidents.
I'd be very sad if they limited hp or speed a car can have. They do that in some parts of Europe n Asia.

Would it be sad?

[ParsedOut]

I'm just gonna leave this here...because you all seem to prefer heavily biased research over what history has shown.

"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements .... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
- Benito Mussolini

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
- Adolf Hitler

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
- Mao Tse Tung


And for those saying that NO ONE in congress is trying to ban guns entirely.

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

Yeah, we're crazy to think our rights are under attack. These were said in public, to think there are no further hidden agendas across the party is naive.

[Farbin Kaiber]

We are gonna need a quicklink in a sticky in P&R to quote this post a whole damn lot I think.

[The Dark Side of Will]

The FBI classifies any non-gang active shooter event involving 4 or more homicides as a mass killing, so they applied a higher standard than the FBI to determine that number.

PS your uncited quotation regarding an average of 2.3 fatalities relies on a very shitty math to come up with that number

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/1332

The definition of mass killing is that people were shot. This includes the assumption that the shooter wasn't stopped.

From your link (which actually critiqued the link I posted):

What is important, and what you should take away, are the two central numbers: 14.3 versus 2.3. When bystanders act, fewer victims die.

I don't see anything about shitty math. You posted something that agreed with what I said.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Do you have any data or sources to back this up? For all we know you just pulled that number out of thin air.

I disagree. I don't think 2.3 deaths is considered "massive". Remember, we're talking about MASS shootings, not singular homicides. Including shootings that result in 1 or 2 deaths in to the category of "mass shootings" would corrupt and skew the data, as those events do not meet the criteria. Is 1 death considered a "mass shooting"? No. Is 2? No. What about 5? Ya, I'd say you're getting there with 5. There's no written-in-stone rule for just how many deaths constitute a "mass shooting", but 5 is a very reasonable place to start. 1 or 2 is not.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

If you were interested in doing real research, you could find a good many more by googling "mass shootings stopped by armed bystanders"

When a guy shows up with multiple firearms and over 100 rounds of ammunition in multiple mags on his person, he was clearly planning to shoot more than 1, 2 or 2.3 people, despite the fact that he was stopped in the process.

Your argument is that if you exclude all the intended mass shootings stopped by armed bystanders, then armed bystanders don't stop any mass shootings... which is typical of broken MJ logic.

[Roysneon]

We don't blame alcohol for drunk drives. Or car manufactures for car accidents.
I'd be very sad if they limited hp or speed a car can have. They do that in some parts of Europe n Asia.

Proof?

[Ikazamay]

We don't blame alcohol for drunk drives. Or car manufactures for car accidents.
I'd be very sad if they limited hp or speed a car can have. They do that in some parts of Europe n Asia.

[mbenning]

You're seriously comparing the two?

[Dakotademon7]

Cars kill people to.

[mbenning]

Guns don't kill people, oh wait... yes they do.

[Dakotademon7]

I like guns.