|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit.
475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad.
|
|
|
On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad.
Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc.
Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards.
That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous.
|
On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things.
Mass shooting events include terrorism on their lists, such as 2015’s murders by Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez in Chattanooga.
EDIT: So you’d have to manually confirm that the terrorism related crimes were properly labeled in every case and properly removed from the total.
|
On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous.
Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event.
When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric.
But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website.
|
On November 13 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous. Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event. When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric. But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website.
Are you arguing a police shoot out is a mass shooting? Because you are saying that right now.
|
On November 13 2018 06:29 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous. Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event. When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric. But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website. Are you arguing a police shoot out is a mass shooting? Because you are saying that right now.
I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise?
Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database.
|
On November 13 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous. Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event. When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric. But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website. Are you arguing a police shoot out is a mass shooting? Because you are saying that right now. I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise? Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database.
My example merely points out the database is flawed. It took me literally 10 seconds to point that out.
Most people would not consider gang warfare to be a mass shooting. Self defense against multiple assailants. Police shootouts versus armed suspects, etc
Those fact checkers suck. Most people consider mass shootings to be an armed suspect targeting unarmed civilians. That database makes no discrimination against anything (it uses a very wide reaching definition to inflate their numbers as much as possible) and fact that the BBC uses it as a source for their numbers only demonstrates the liberal agenda that most of the media have.
|
On November 13 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:31 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things. Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..? It's not a mass shooting if one person dies and three people get injured by flying glass, even you wouldn't go as far to say that. Except the site in question does actually qualify that as a mass shooting. That is going to hyper inflate the number of deaths exponentially. That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, so don't give me anymore bullshit.
That's all well and nice except 1. That has nothing to do with what I wrote and 2. Well, sure, technically a dead person is also injured, but he is still dead. The FBI numbers are for dead people, not "injured by glass". So while failing to stay on topic for a one sentence post, you fail to stay honest in the point you did tried to make.
|
On November 13 2018 06:45 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:31 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things. Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..? It's not a mass shooting if one person dies and three people get injured by flying glass, even you wouldn't go as far to say that. Except the site in question does actually qualify that as a mass shooting. That is going to hyper inflate the number of deaths exponentially. That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, so don't give me anymore bullshit. That's all well and nice except 1. That has nothing to do with what I wrote and 2. Well, sure, technically a dead person is also injured, but he is still dead. The FBI numbers are for dead people, not "injured by glass". So while failing to stay on topic for a one sentence post, you fail to stay honest in the point you did tried to make.
Do you consider gang on gang warfare a mass shooting? I don't. Nor do I consider police shootings a mass shooting. Or a home owner defending themselves versus multiple suspects. But the site in question does. If you seriously are buying into the legitimacy of that site, I question your ability to even remain objective.
The site itself straight up lies about where it gets it's methodology. It says it's a FBI derivative, but the FBI explicitly uses multiple deaths because using both fatalities and injuries adds too many variables into the equation. There is no reason to do that other than to inflate your numbers.
|
On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:45 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:31 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things. Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..? It's not a mass shooting if one person dies and three people get injured by flying glass, even you wouldn't go as far to say that. Except the site in question does actually qualify that as a mass shooting. That is going to hyper inflate the number of deaths exponentially. That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, so don't give me anymore bullshit. That's all well and nice except 1. That has nothing to do with what I wrote and 2. Well, sure, technically a dead person is also injured, but he is still dead. The FBI numbers are for dead people, not "injured by glass". So while failing to stay on topic for a one sentence post, you fail to stay honest in the point you did tried to make. Do you consider gang on gang warfare a mass shooting? I don't. Nor do I consider police shootings a mass shooting. Or a home owner defending themselves versus multiple suspects. But the site in question does. If you seriously are buying into the legitimacy of that site, I question your ability to even remain objective.
So you want to pick and choose when a mass shooting is indeed a mass shooting? Are we going to grade how much worth a human is while we're at it? Or are you at least agreeable enough to admit that this world would be a better place if people didn't shoot each other en massè, including gang members? A mass shooting is a mass shooting. It doesn't matter who's involved, it's a tragedy nonetheless.
I am sorry for buying into the legitimacy of FBI numbers  Those are some really shifty guys with an agenda for sure.
And who says I'm objective? Like yourself I'm very much subjective on the issue. I have made my feelings clear on this.
On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:
The site itself straight up lies about where it gets it's methodology. It says it's a FBI derivative, but the FBI explicitly uses multiple deaths because using both fatalities and injuries adds too many variables into the equation. There is no reason to do that other than to inflate your numbers.
Since you edited your post I will do the same: The FBI doesn't track mass shootings at all. They only provide death statistics: quote "The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports do not define mass shooting but do provide information on the number of victims, and the reports have been used by researchers in conjunction with news reports or other data sources.".
I can also appreciate it is indeed difficult to determine exactly when something is a mass shooting or not. But if you start excluding numbers because of motivation, type of targets, or whether it's domestic violence or not, you're just deflating numbers, which doesn't actually help provide context for the topic at hand: Should weapons be regulated? It doesn't stop being a mass shooting just because the killed was someone's entire family.
|
On November 13 2018 06:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 06:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous. Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event. When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric. But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website. Are you arguing a police shoot out is a mass shooting? Because you are saying that right now. I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise? Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database. My example merely points out the database is flawed. It took me literally 10 seconds to point that out. Most people would not consider gang warfare to be a mass shooting. Self defense against multiple assailants. Police shootouts versus armed suspects, etc Those fact checkers suck. Most people consider mass shootings to be an armed suspect targeting unarmed civilians. That database makes no discrimination against anything (it uses a very wide reaching definition to inflate their numbers as much as possible) and fact that the BBC uses it as a source for their numbers only demonstrates the liberal agenda that most of the media have.
I’m sorry, I will not accept your “those fact checkers suck,” evidence. You are talking about the BBC, PBS, NPR, NYT and other news agencies that looked at that data based and decided it was worth writing about.
Furthermore, I think you are making shit up. You have no idea if a police shoot out it in that data base, you just think it’s a good talking point. But now that I have asked for it, you can’t be bothered to look it up. It is 100% typical of your argument style, which is to simply attack any information that is presented, rather than discuss it in good faith.
|
|
|
On November 13 2018 06:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 06:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous. Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event. When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric. But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website. Are you arguing a police shoot out is a mass shooting? Because you are saying that right now. I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise? Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database. My example merely points out the database is flawed. It took me literally 10 seconds to point that out. Most people would not consider gang warfare to be a mass shooting. Self defense against multiple assailants. Police shootouts versus armed suspects, etc Those fact checkers suck. Most people consider mass shootings to be an armed suspect targeting unarmed civilians. That database makes no discrimination against anything (it uses a very wide reaching definition to inflate their numbers as much as possible) and fact that the BBC uses it as a source for their numbers only demonstrates the liberal agenda that most of the media have. I’m sorry, I will not accept your “those fact checkers suck,” evidence. You are talking about the BBC, PBS, NPR, NYT and other news agencies that looked at that data based and decided it was worth writing about. Furthermore, I think you are making shit up. You have no idea if a police shoot out it in that data base, you just think it’s a good talking point. But now that I have asked for it, you can’t be bothered to look it up. It is 100% typical of your argument style, which is to simply attack any information that is presented, rather than discuss it in good faith.
You are willfully not reading the site.
+ Show Spoiler +What GVA considers Gun Violence...and why Our definition of gun violence is intended to be fully inclusionary of disparate elements of gun related incidents...in that, all types of shootings are included, whether OIS, accidental, children shooting themselves, murders, armed robberies, familicide, mass shootings, DGU, Home Invasions, drivebys and everything else. We derive our definitions from CDC, FBI, NIH, and other organizations who have established standards. Only by being totally inclusionary in our definitions is our data accurate, allowing the researcher to decide which parts of the complete dataset they need for their work. Our goal is to provide a complete picture of impact. Users then glean what they need from the whole. We intentionally have no GVA POV on the subject... but put in more real terms, GVA is against gun violence, not guns or gun owners and in that we strive to provide an unbiased, complete view of the subject. Why are GVA Mass Shooting numbers higher than some other sources? GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot. GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident. In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology
It takes literally 10 seconds to find out what their methodology is, aka clicking and reading something.
On November 13 2018 06:54 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:45 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:31 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things. Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..? It's not a mass shooting if one person dies and three people get injured by flying glass, even you wouldn't go as far to say that. Except the site in question does actually qualify that as a mass shooting. That is going to hyper inflate the number of deaths exponentially. That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, so don't give me anymore bullshit. That's all well and nice except 1. That has nothing to do with what I wrote and 2. Well, sure, technically a dead person is also injured, but he is still dead. The FBI numbers are for dead people, not "injured by glass". So while failing to stay on topic for a one sentence post, you fail to stay honest in the point you did tried to make. Do you consider gang on gang warfare a mass shooting? I don't. Nor do I consider police shootings a mass shooting. Or a home owner defending themselves versus multiple suspects. But the site in question does. If you seriously are buying into the legitimacy of that site, I question your ability to even remain objective. So you want to pick and choose when a mass shooting is indeed a mass shooting? Are we going to grade how much worth a human is while we're at it? Or are you at least agreeable enough to admit that this world would be a better place if people didn't shoot each other en massè, including gang members? A mass shooting is a mass shooting. It doesn't matter who's involved, it's a tragedy nonetheless. I am sorry for buying into the legitimacy of FBI numbers Those are some really shifty guys with an agenda for sure. And who says I'm objective? Like yourself I'm very much subjective on the issue. I have made my feelings clear on this. Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:
The site itself straight up lies about where it gets it's methodology. It says it's a FBI derivative, but the FBI explicitly uses multiple deaths because using both fatalities and injuries adds too many variables into the equation. There is no reason to do that other than to inflate your numbers. Since you edited your post I will do the same: The FBI doesn't track mass shootings at all. They only provide death statistics: quote "The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports do not define mass shooting but do provide information on the number of victims, and the reports have been used by researchers in conjunction with news reports or other data sources.". I can also appreciate it is indeed difficult to determine exactly when something is a mass shooting or not. But if you start excluding numbers because of motivation, type of targets, or whether it's domestic violence or not, you're just deflating numbers, which doesn't actually help provide context for the topic at hand: Should weapons be regulated? It doesn't stop being a mass shooting just because the killed was someone's entire family.
I'll repeat it.
Do you agree that gang on gang warfare is a 'mass shooting', a shooting that typically involves one or more armed assailants versus multiple unarmed civilians who have no ill intent versus the shooter. Because that's what most people view as a mass shooting.
The FBI does track what most people would consider a mass shooting; it's called an active shooter.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view
|
On November 13 2018 07:10 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 06:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 06:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015. That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous. Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event. When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric. But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website. Are you arguing a police shoot out is a mass shooting? Because you are saying that right now. I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise? Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database. My example merely points out the database is flawed. It took me literally 10 seconds to point that out. Most people would not consider gang warfare to be a mass shooting. Self defense against multiple assailants. Police shootouts versus armed suspects, etc Those fact checkers suck. Most people consider mass shootings to be an armed suspect targeting unarmed civilians. That database makes no discrimination against anything (it uses a very wide reaching definition to inflate their numbers as much as possible) and fact that the BBC uses it as a source for their numbers only demonstrates the liberal agenda that most of the media have. I’m sorry, I will not accept your “those fact checkers suck,” evidence. You are talking about the BBC, PBS, NPR, NYT and other news agencies that looked at that data based and decided it was worth writing about. Furthermore, I think you are making shit up. You have no idea if a police shoot out it in that data base, you just think it’s a good talking point. But now that I have asked for it, you can’t be bothered to look it up. It is 100% typical of your argument style, which is to simply attack any information that is presented, rather than discuss it in good faith. You are willfully not reading the site. + Show Spoiler +What GVA considers Gun Violence...and why Our definition of gun violence is intended to be fully inclusionary of disparate elements of gun related incidents...in that, all types of shootings are included, whether OIS, accidental, children shooting themselves, murders, armed robberies, familicide, mass shootings, DGU, Home Invasions, drivebys and everything else. We derive our definitions from CDC, FBI, NIH, and other organizations who have established standards. Only by being totally inclusionary in our definitions is our data accurate, allowing the researcher to decide which parts of the complete dataset they need for their work. Our goal is to provide a complete picture of impact. Users then glean what they need from the whole. We intentionally have no GVA POV on the subject... but put in more real terms, GVA is against gun violence, not guns or gun owners and in that we strive to provide an unbiased, complete view of the subject. Why are GVA Mass Shooting numbers higher than some other sources? GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot. GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident. In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodologyIt takes literally 10 seconds to find out what their methodology is, aka clicking and reading something. Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:45 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:31 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things. Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..? It's not a mass shooting if one person dies and three people get injured by flying glass, even you wouldn't go as far to say that. Except the site in question does actually qualify that as a mass shooting. That is going to hyper inflate the number of deaths exponentially. That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, so don't give me anymore bullshit. That's all well and nice except 1. That has nothing to do with what I wrote and 2. Well, sure, technically a dead person is also injured, but he is still dead. The FBI numbers are for dead people, not "injured by glass". So while failing to stay on topic for a one sentence post, you fail to stay honest in the point you did tried to make. Do you consider gang on gang warfare a mass shooting? I don't. Nor do I consider police shootings a mass shooting. Or a home owner defending themselves versus multiple suspects. But the site in question does. If you seriously are buying into the legitimacy of that site, I question your ability to even remain objective. So you want to pick and choose when a mass shooting is indeed a mass shooting? Are we going to grade how much worth a human is while we're at it? Or are you at least agreeable enough to admit that this world would be a better place if people didn't shoot each other en massè, including gang members? A mass shooting is a mass shooting. It doesn't matter who's involved, it's a tragedy nonetheless. I am sorry for buying into the legitimacy of FBI numbers Those are some really shifty guys with an agenda for sure. And who says I'm objective? Like yourself I'm very much subjective on the issue. I have made my feelings clear on this. On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:
The site itself straight up lies about where it gets it's methodology. It says it's a FBI derivative, but the FBI explicitly uses multiple deaths because using both fatalities and injuries adds too many variables into the equation. There is no reason to do that other than to inflate your numbers. Since you edited your post I will do the same: The FBI doesn't track mass shootings at all. They only provide death statistics: quote "The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports do not define mass shooting but do provide information on the number of victims, and the reports have been used by researchers in conjunction with news reports or other data sources.". I can also appreciate it is indeed difficult to determine exactly when something is a mass shooting or not. But if you start excluding numbers because of motivation, type of targets, or whether it's domestic violence or not, you're just deflating numbers, which doesn't actually help provide context for the topic at hand: Should weapons be regulated? It doesn't stop being a mass shooting just because the killed was someone's entire family. I'll repeat it. Do you agree that gang on gang warfare is a 'mass shooting', a shooting that typically involves one or more armed assailants versus multiple unarmed civilians who have no ill intent versus the shooter. Because that's what most people view as a mass shooting.
Yes, I do. Do you think gangs meet up in a dark alley to "battle it out"? No, they shoot each other when the other doesn't expect it, often through driveby shootings, attacking their homes, or otherwise trying to catch them off guard. Criminal or not, armed or not, you ARE a civilian at that point.
The target or motivation doesn't matter in the context because the answer to the question of "What would a regulation if guns do?" Would still be "less mass murders", no matter how you count it.
|
On November 13 2018 07:19 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 07:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:59 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 06:43 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 06:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:57 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:46 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit. 475 people died due to guns in groups of 3 or more. Or did they not die and its all made up? You keep saying things are propaganda and false, but then don’t really got into a lot of specifics as to why the data is bad. Let's say that it's a gang shooting where one person gets shot and killed, and three others are injured by shrapnel from glass, etc. Or a police officer shootout where one person dies, and a few others are injured. That's considered a mass shooting too, despite the fact that almost no one here would consider a police shootout with an armed suspect to be a mass shooting by most people's reasonable standards. That's why that site is full of shit, and using it as evidence is ridiculous. Yes, but they all need to be injured by the fire arm. It isn’t like the site doesn’t provide sources. You can go into each shooting and see who was hurt/killed, who fired the gun and read news stories related to the event. When you say the data is bullshit, you mean it doesn’t meet the narrow definition of the FBI’s mass murder classification. And I agree. The database should change the language and stop claiming to use the FBI’s metric. But the data is, by all accounts, real. It was used by PBS, the BBC and several other publications, all who use fact checkers. So it isn’t fiction unless you believe every single one of them failed in their fact checking. These were all shootings where three or more people are killed or injured. And in 2015, a total of 475 people died in events tracked by this website. Are you arguing a police shoot out is a mass shooting? Because you are saying that right now. I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise? Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database. My example merely points out the database is flawed. It took me literally 10 seconds to point that out. Most people would not consider gang warfare to be a mass shooting. Self defense against multiple assailants. Police shootouts versus armed suspects, etc Those fact checkers suck. Most people consider mass shootings to be an armed suspect targeting unarmed civilians. That database makes no discrimination against anything (it uses a very wide reaching definition to inflate their numbers as much as possible) and fact that the BBC uses it as a source for their numbers only demonstrates the liberal agenda that most of the media have. I’m sorry, I will not accept your “those fact checkers suck,” evidence. You are talking about the BBC, PBS, NPR, NYT and other news agencies that looked at that data based and decided it was worth writing about. Furthermore, I think you are making shit up. You have no idea if a police shoot out it in that data base, you just think it’s a good talking point. But now that I have asked for it, you can’t be bothered to look it up. It is 100% typical of your argument style, which is to simply attack any information that is presented, rather than discuss it in good faith. You are willfully not reading the site. + Show Spoiler +What GVA considers Gun Violence...and why Our definition of gun violence is intended to be fully inclusionary of disparate elements of gun related incidents...in that, all types of shootings are included, whether OIS, accidental, children shooting themselves, murders, armed robberies, familicide, mass shootings, DGU, Home Invasions, drivebys and everything else. We derive our definitions from CDC, FBI, NIH, and other organizations who have established standards. Only by being totally inclusionary in our definitions is our data accurate, allowing the researcher to decide which parts of the complete dataset they need for their work. Our goal is to provide a complete picture of impact. Users then glean what they need from the whole. We intentionally have no GVA POV on the subject... but put in more real terms, GVA is against gun violence, not guns or gun owners and in that we strive to provide an unbiased, complete view of the subject. Why are GVA Mass Shooting numbers higher than some other sources? GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot. GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident. In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not involving the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodologyIt takes literally 10 seconds to find out what their methodology is, aka clicking and reading something. On November 13 2018 06:54 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 06:45 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:36 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 05:31 Excludos wrote:On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things. Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..? It's not a mass shooting if one person dies and three people get injured by flying glass, even you wouldn't go as far to say that. Except the site in question does actually qualify that as a mass shooting. That is going to hyper inflate the number of deaths exponentially. That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, so don't give me anymore bullshit. That's all well and nice except 1. That has nothing to do with what I wrote and 2. Well, sure, technically a dead person is also injured, but he is still dead. The FBI numbers are for dead people, not "injured by glass". So while failing to stay on topic for a one sentence post, you fail to stay honest in the point you did tried to make. Do you consider gang on gang warfare a mass shooting? I don't. Nor do I consider police shootings a mass shooting. Or a home owner defending themselves versus multiple suspects. But the site in question does. If you seriously are buying into the legitimacy of that site, I question your ability to even remain objective. So you want to pick and choose when a mass shooting is indeed a mass shooting? Are we going to grade how much worth a human is while we're at it? Or are you at least agreeable enough to admit that this world would be a better place if people didn't shoot each other en massè, including gang members? A mass shooting is a mass shooting. It doesn't matter who's involved, it's a tragedy nonetheless. I am sorry for buying into the legitimacy of FBI numbers Those are some really shifty guys with an agenda for sure. And who says I'm objective? Like yourself I'm very much subjective on the issue. I have made my feelings clear on this. On November 13 2018 06:47 superstartran wrote:
The site itself straight up lies about where it gets it's methodology. It says it's a FBI derivative, but the FBI explicitly uses multiple deaths because using both fatalities and injuries adds too many variables into the equation. There is no reason to do that other than to inflate your numbers. Since you edited your post I will do the same: The FBI doesn't track mass shootings at all. They only provide death statistics: quote "The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports do not define mass shooting but do provide information on the number of victims, and the reports have been used by researchers in conjunction with news reports or other data sources.". I can also appreciate it is indeed difficult to determine exactly when something is a mass shooting or not. But if you start excluding numbers because of motivation, type of targets, or whether it's domestic violence or not, you're just deflating numbers, which doesn't actually help provide context for the topic at hand: Should weapons be regulated? It doesn't stop being a mass shooting just because the killed was someone's entire family. I'll repeat it. Do you agree that gang on gang warfare is a 'mass shooting', a shooting that typically involves one or more armed assailants versus multiple unarmed civilians who have no ill intent versus the shooter. Because that's what most people view as a mass shooting. Yes, I do. Do you think gangs meet up in a dark alley to "battle it out"? No, they shoot each other when the other doesn't expect it, often through driveby shootings, attacking their homes, or otherwise trying to catch them off guard. Criminal or not, armed or not, you ARE a civilian at that point. The target or motivation doesn't matter in the context because the answer to the question of "What would a regulation if guns do?" Would still be "less mass murders", no matter how you count it.
1) I've already proven why regulations does not always mean lower homicide rates. Multiple examples.
2) Do you not see how dishonest it is for the media to talk solely about active shooters / mass shootings, and then turn around and use wide reaching numbers such as gang warfare, home invasions, robberies, etc. in order to bolster their numbers? If you can't see the issue here I'm not really sure what to tell you. Mind you, they never mention that those numbers also include robberies, gang warfare, etc. they just say "four or more people shot"
3) Now you're just willfully making up a definition of mass shooter to fit your argument. Come on bro, most people consider a mass shooting to be one or more unarmed assailants in a public area trying to inflict as many fatalities as possible. Not drug lord A went to go shoot up drug lord B's house.
|
There is no centralized goverment database tracking the many versions of gun violence in the US. The goverment does not compile that information. The easiest to stop that sort of mischaracterization, if we are going to call it that, is for is for the goverment to collect and provide that data for the public to review.
|
On November 13 2018 07:34 Plansix wrote:
There is no centralized goverment database tracking the many versions of gun violence in the US. The goverment does not compile that information. The easiest to stop that sort of mischaracterization, if we are going to call it that, is for is for the goverment to collect and provide that data for the public to review.
LMAO.
Nice job at completely ignoring the fact that you got called out for being wrong. That database is full of shit in the context of using it to for mass shootings, and any publication using it without mentioning that it adds all those different factors is either pushing an agenda (which means they have no real journalistic integrity) or they have terrible fucking fact checkers.
Classic. Fucking Classic.
And most people's definition of a mass shooter fits in with either the Mother Jones definition, or with the FBI's definition of an active shooter, which they most certainly keep track of.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view
|
On November 13 2018 07:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 07:34 Plansix wrote:
There is no centralized goverment database tracking the many versions of gun violence in the US. The goverment does not compile that information. The easiest to stop that sort of mischaracterization, if we are going to call it that, is for is for the goverment to collect and provide that data for the public to review. LMAO. Nice job at completely ignoring the fact that you got called out for being wrong. That database is full of shit in the context of using it to for mass shootings, and any publication using it without mentioning that it adds all those different factors is either pushing an agenda (which means they have no real journalistic integrity) or they have terrible fucking fact checkers. Classic. Fucking Classic. And most people's definition of a mass shooter fits in with either the Mother Jones definition, or with the FBI's definition of an active shooter, which they most certainly keep track of. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view
I wasn't wrong. I just didn't want to edit to quote on your lazy posts providing me with info I already had. Again, I never asked if you a police shooting could be part of that data base. I asked if it was part of that data base in 2015. I wan't interested in hypothetical police shootings. I'm interested in real ones. You express a great deal of knowledge about that data base, so I wanted more info. At some point I got tired of you putting in zero effort into responding to me.
So again, how often in that data base are police the people doing the shooting? Do you even know?
Edit; And the active shooter data base is not data collection on gun violence in the US. That data would be collected by either the ATF or the CDC.
|
On November 13 2018 07:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 07:37 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 07:34 Plansix wrote:
There is no centralized goverment database tracking the many versions of gun violence in the US. The goverment does not compile that information. The easiest to stop that sort of mischaracterization, if we are going to call it that, is for is for the goverment to collect and provide that data for the public to review. LMAO. Nice job at completely ignoring the fact that you got called out for being wrong. That database is full of shit in the context of using it to for mass shootings, and any publication using it without mentioning that it adds all those different factors is either pushing an agenda (which means they have no real journalistic integrity) or they have terrible fucking fact checkers. Classic. Fucking Classic. And most people's definition of a mass shooter fits in with either the Mother Jones definition, or with the FBI's definition of an active shooter, which they most certainly keep track of. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view I wasn't wrong. I just didn't want to edit to quote on your lazy posts providing me with info I already had. Again, I never asked if you a police shooting could be part of that data base. I asked if it was part of that data base in 2015. I wan't interested in hypothetical police shootings. I'm interested in real ones. You express a great deal of knowledge about that data base, so I wanted more info. At some point I got tired of you putting in zero effort into responding to me. So again, how often in that data base are police the people doing the shooting? Do you even know? Edit; And the active shooter data base is not data collection on gun violence in the US. That data would be collected by either the ATF or the CDC.
This is your original quote so you can't back out of it
+ Show Spoiler +I have no reason to believe that database contains police shootouts in it. Do you have an example that would prove otherwise?
Furthermore, I do not believe police shot outs are common enough to make up a significant percentage of that database.
The website plainly states it does not leave any kind of shooting out. Whether it was lawful, unlawful, robbery, home invasion, gang warfare, and yes, police shootings.
You are flat out wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
