Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.
I started out by asking "What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings [which differs in magnitude of what is popularly considered a mass shooting and includes private rather than public locations] were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?"
Of course, you didn't bother to come up with such evidence, but you ask for evidence of the reverse.
I pointed out that some articles that purported to debunk the gun free zone "myth" used straw man tactics such as by implying that the supporters of the "myth" were really claiming that the gun free zone was the motivation for killing. When such supporters don't claim that. They acknowledge that there were personal problems that motivated the shooters, but a gun free location merely made it easier to carry out their plan.
I pointed out that the gun-free-zone mythers used questionable statistics to show that the vast majority of mass shootings were not in gun-free zones. And that only 15% to 25% of the shootings were in designated gun-free zones. And by using the FBI definition of mass shootings they claimed that 60% to 70% percent were in private homes (which for the most part are gun free anyway). And about 30% were in work places (which for the most part are also gun free either by designation, understanding, or habit). So that in actuality, even using those misleading statistics, whether designated or not so designated, upon closer examination most of the mass shootings, even by FBI definition, occurred in what were effectively gun-free locations.
And I listed some articles that addressed all that. In one, for instance, a CPRC report showed that a Newtown shooting study claiming only 14% of mass shootings occurred in designated gun-free zones and 86% didn't was flawed because the 86% included private homes (which for the most part, as I said, are gun free). And that, actually, 92% of the shootings did occur in gun-free zones.
And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.
|
You didn't ask for proof. You wanted evidence. And I provided way more, either circumstantial or direct, than you gave for "What evidence is there that some locations
weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones?" You gave none.
Never mind that even if we take the faulty low-ball estimate of designated gun-free zones only being 15% to 25% of all mass shootings compared to 85% occurring in private homes or work places, the number of designated gun-free zones is miniscule compared with the number of detached private homes (over 91 million to which should be added another 30 million apartment buildings multiplied by the number of living units therein) plus the untold number of workplaces. By that closer analysis the comparatively miniscule number of designated gun-free zones accounting for 15% to 25% of all mass shootings is far more significantly reflective of the importance of location than the rest of the shootings spread over the many millions of not actually designated gun-free zones. Then, again, most of those gun allowed places are actually gun free most of the time.
And never mind the simple logic that a criminal, mass shooter or other wise, would rather that his victims were unarmed. That's too simple a concept and is not subject to impersonal statistical analysis. It would be possible to ask criminals what they would prefer. What do you think they'ld say if they were honest? I know, I know, mass shooters, according to you, all want to commit suicide. But don't they want more easily and assuredly to kill the right number of victims before they croak?
Then there is that troublesome human nature thing which prefers the path of least resistance. But . . . NAHHH . . . that's not an attractive sort of discussion for sophisticated, academic, progressive minds. And, certainly, military logic which seeks advantage in battle would be below the dignity of such minds.
No, it's a higher calling to consider more interesting and challenging notions on which to build a conclusive battery of statistics. The unreachable intellectual elevation of such studies would be more impressive, thus convincing, to the weaker minds of the general public. It is the appearance, the relative superiority of perception, the convolution of context, which produces the more sophisticated aroma in the contest of narrative . . . that passes the smell test.
I would guess that for you, the long history of tortured efforts to create the image of Hillary as Commander in Chief would make the aroma emanating from her butt crack an essence of fine perfume. And such from Cheney just a stinky fart.
And it's amazing how you can cling to and still insist that the notion of a crude video must be recognized as at least a part of the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, but the idea that mass shooters would prefer a gun-free zone to do their work rather than doing it in an armed zone is just a myth.