07-15-2016, 10:33 AM
(07-15-2016, 09:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it should definitely be included. It shows that the presence of firearms is not necessarily a deterrent to someone who is set on carrying out a mass shooting, nor is it guaranteed to stop one. I understand what you are saying, because statistically it would be an outlier when looking at the data in certain ways, but when looking at it based on the presence of firearms among the victims it is anything but.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here.
Indeed, and this sort of thing has occurred in other places. There have also been instances where there was someone carrying, or multiple people carrying, and the shooter killed themselves or the police killed them. There have been situations where someone carrying may have killed the shooter, but also created another victim.
So many of these events don't hit the news cycles as hard and/or can be difficult to find years later, but these things have happened. The evidence is not substantial enough to show any causal relationship between gun free zones and mass shootings.
No it shouldn't, the targets were police officers not the crowd. If the target were the crowd then you would have a point. The person used tactics designed for targeting police as opposed to targeting say a school or movie theater.
What I was trying to say, is in Pulse 50 people dead, in SC, I don't think there was a single person killed, or the number was so little as not even to register as a "mass shooting".
I'll tell you what though, feel free to obey the gun free zones all you want, as for myself, I just don't go to those places.
