Yes, if we're talking about mass shootings with a strict numeric definition that, thus, includes any time a person kills their family in a murder or murder suicide, then you can make an argument like this.
However, when most people think of "mass shootings" they are thinking of the disaffected person going out to shoot people either at a place they have a grievance, or just at a random location a la Aurora, VT, Appalachian School of Law, Columbine, Newtown, etc.
Perhaps for the sake of clarity we should come up with a term for these types of mass shootings as opposed to the others which have more in common with domestic violence. "Spree Shootings" perhaps?
Whatever you call them, these "Spree Shootings" do seem to take place, by design or coincidence, mostly in gun free zones.
To include the domestic incidents with what you know people are talking about is an interesting way to cook statistics, and you're welcome to argue for the propriety of lumping them together (don't think it makes much sense in the context of the discussion, but feel free to go for it).
However, you know that the previous discussions of "Mass Shootings" have focused on the non-domestic sprees, so calling people liars based on a different set of incidents is just dishonest on your part.
Yeah, let's discount any domestic incident and the Loughner shooting too. Then we can say most of them take place in gun free zones because everyone knows gun free zones attract mass killers.
Nothing I said suggested taking the Tuscon shooting out of the "Spree shooting" category. Why do you have to be dishonest like that.
I didn't discount it to reduce the number of shootings in non-gun free zones. I also did not say that the zones attract mass killers/spree shooters/whatever term we're going to settle on.
All I said was that whether by design (some shooters may indeed choose their location based on this) or by coincidence (based on the sheer prevalence of gun free zones) these sprees tend to happen in these zones.
Of course, rather than discuss the topic, you have to completely misrepresent that as a suggestion that they attract the spree shooters.
Why? Are you that unsure of your arguments that you have to turn around and misconstrue what I said so that you can keep feeling good about your "NRA lies" tag?
You're the one twisting things. Are "spree shootings" different from "mass shootings?" Is that the way you continue to push the lie that's refuted in this post, that most of them happen in gun free zones?
Stop being willfully obtuse. As I said in the first comment, when most people talk about mass shootings, they are thinking of the sprees where someone goes to a place they have a grievance, or to a place they choose to act out because of some vague grievance, and kills a bunch of people. They're not thinking of every multiple homicide.
The point was to note that there is a difference between a strict numeric definition and the type of incidents most people think of, and to then try to apply a name to signify what was being intended.
Are the types of shootings different? The motives of the people who shoot their family vs. those who shoot up a mall, school, etc.? The tactics of stopping them? The tactics of the shooters? I don't know. But any honest person could admit that the past discussions have been talking about the sprees.
What defines mass shootings is the number of victims, period. It has nothing to do with the motives of the shooter.
The whole discussion of gun free zones by you gun nuts is to say they attract mass shooters. You said exactly what I've often said to refute that. The shooters go the the place of their grievance, a school, the workplace, a movie theater, or the family lunch table. It has nothing to do with the gun free status of the place.
Yes, and I've been referring to your comment about that since my first comment here where I said that they go to the place of their grievance, or to a random place of their choosing if there isn't a specific locale to their grievance.
I wasn't saying that the zones attract them. Instead, I was saying that a lot of these tend to happen in gun free zones, either by design (a possibility in the small number of cases where they choose the location because of a generalized grievance) or by coincidence.
Even if it's ALL by coincidence, it's still worth looking at the gun free zone idea and how it prevents an armed response happening, unless, of course, there are officers present, such as in cases where SRO's have stopped potential mass shootings, or a person with a carry permit goes, gets their gun, and violates the gun free zone by coming to stop the shooting as happened at the Appalachian School of Law shooting.
We've tried to have this discussion many times, but you keep ignoring what we say, as you have this time, and keep arguing against a straw man.
This is exactly what you have done this time, as you summed up so nicely in your last post where you said that all I was trying to do is say that gun free zones attract mass shooters. Actually looking at my comments shows that that is NOT what I was saying, but you would prefer to argue against that straw man than address the point I tried to lay out.
Well, at least you made your desire to debate a scarecrow instead of me quite clear.
Yes, if we're talking about mass shootings with a strict numeric definition that, thus, includes any time a person kills their family in a murder or murder suicide, then you can make an argument like this.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when most people think of "mass shootings" they are thinking of the disaffected person going out to shoot people either at a place they have a grievance, or just at a random location a la Aurora, VT, Appalachian School of Law, Columbine, Newtown, etc.
Perhaps for the sake of clarity we should come up with a term for these types of mass shootings as opposed to the others which have more in common with domestic violence. "Spree Shootings" perhaps?
Whatever you call them, these "Spree Shootings" do seem to take place, by design or coincidence, mostly in gun free zones.
To include the domestic incidents with what you know people are talking about is an interesting way to cook statistics, and you're welcome to argue for the propriety of lumping them together (don't think it makes much sense in the context of the discussion, but feel free to go for it).
However, you know that the previous discussions of "Mass Shootings" have focused on the non-domestic sprees, so calling people liars based on a different set of incidents is just dishonest on your part.
Yeah, let's discount any domestic incident and the Loughner shooting too. Then we can say most of them take place in gun free zones because everyone knows gun free zones attract mass killers.
DeleteNothing I said suggested taking the Tuscon shooting out of the "Spree shooting" category. Why do you have to be dishonest like that.
DeleteI didn't discount it to reduce the number of shootings in non-gun free zones. I also did not say that the zones attract mass killers/spree shooters/whatever term we're going to settle on.
All I said was that whether by design (some shooters may indeed choose their location based on this) or by coincidence (based on the sheer prevalence of gun free zones) these sprees tend to happen in these zones.
Of course, rather than discuss the topic, you have to completely misrepresent that as a suggestion that they attract the spree shooters.
Why? Are you that unsure of your arguments that you have to turn around and misconstrue what I said so that you can keep feeling good about your "NRA lies" tag?
You're the one twisting things. Are "spree shootings" different from "mass shootings?" Is that the way you continue to push the lie that's refuted in this post, that most of them happen in gun free zones?
DeleteStop being willfully obtuse. As I said in the first comment, when most people talk about mass shootings, they are thinking of the sprees where someone goes to a place they have a grievance, or to a place they choose to act out because of some vague grievance, and kills a bunch of people. They're not thinking of every multiple homicide.
DeleteThe point was to note that there is a difference between a strict numeric definition and the type of incidents most people think of, and to then try to apply a name to signify what was being intended.
Are the types of shootings different? The motives of the people who shoot their family vs. those who shoot up a mall, school, etc.? The tactics of stopping them? The tactics of the shooters? I don't know. But any honest person could admit that the past discussions have been talking about the sprees.
What defines mass shootings is the number of victims, period. It has nothing to do with the motives of the shooter.
DeleteThe whole discussion of gun free zones by you gun nuts is to say they attract mass shooters. You said exactly what I've often said to refute that. The shooters go the the place of their grievance, a school, the workplace, a movie theater, or the family lunch table. It has nothing to do with the gun free status of the place.
Yes, and I've been referring to your comment about that since my first comment here where I said that they go to the place of their grievance, or to a random place of their choosing if there isn't a specific locale to their grievance.
DeleteI wasn't saying that the zones attract them. Instead, I was saying that a lot of these tend to happen in gun free zones, either by design (a possibility in the small number of cases where they choose the location because of a generalized grievance) or by coincidence.
Even if it's ALL by coincidence, it's still worth looking at the gun free zone idea and how it prevents an armed response happening, unless, of course, there are officers present, such as in cases where SRO's have stopped potential mass shootings, or a person with a carry permit goes, gets their gun, and violates the gun free zone by coming to stop the shooting as happened at the Appalachian School of Law shooting.
We've tried to have this discussion many times, but you keep ignoring what we say, as you have this time, and keep arguing against a straw man.
This is exactly what you have done this time, as you summed up so nicely in your last post where you said that all I was trying to do is say that gun free zones attract mass shooters. Actually looking at my comments shows that that is NOT what I was saying, but you would prefer to argue against that straw man than address the point I tried to lay out.
Well, at least you made your desire to debate a scarecrow instead of me quite clear.