Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
New FBI Report Casts Doubt on NRA s Good Guy Stops Bad Guy Nonsense Mike Weisser
"I'm referring to a report on active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013.
(snip)
Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun."
and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards
What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?
Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.
So it fits the narrative,not once on the Huff post piece were there any word for word quotes connected to said FBI studies,the word suggest this and leads possible for that,just means its an opinion piece nothing more nothing less.
If you want to verify the veracity of the OP go and read the FBI report for yourself. Nothing that I read in the OP was inaccurate per the FBI report.
A report does not have to be inaccurate to be misleading, or to be used to mislead. The following is an excellent example.
Decades ago, when I was in the US Navy, we had our annual squadron picnic, and as often happens, we had a softball game between the Officers, and the Chief Petty Officers. The Chiefs won the game.
The next day, in the Plan of the Day, the following news item was included. "Yesterday, the Officers vs Chiefs softball game was held, and the Chiefs won. Thus, the season ended with the Chiefs managing their only win, while the officers suffered their only loss."
So you just looked for the first thing that you could nitpick by taking it out of context.
Why not post the entire context?
Same reason you had to do a screen shot, it was blowing up the cut & paste
The sentence that you pulled out of context now makes you look foolish since it is not as you implied.
Great job on "shooting yourself in the foot" figuratively speaking.
It is explicit - "active shooting" is one in which LEO are actively engaged.
You of the Khmer Rouge lied in order to further your war on civil rights. You got caught.
{
This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings, but rather a study of a specific type of
shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face. Incidents identified in this study
do not encompass all gun-related situations; therefore caution should be taken when using
this information without placing it in context. Specifically, shootings that resulted from gang
or drug violence—pervasive, long-tracked, criminal acts that could also affect the public—
were not included in this study. In addition, other gun-related shootings were not included
when those incidents appeared generally not to have put others in peril (e.g., the accidental
discharge of a firearm in a school building or a person who chose to publicly commit suicide
in a parking lot). The study does not encompass all mass killings or shootings in public
places and therefore is limited in its scope.6
Nonetheless, it was undertaken to provide clarity
and data of value to both law enforcement and citizens as they seek to stop these threats and
save lives during active shooter incidents.7}
I am a sheriff's auxiliary volunteer. I can tell you that, on the streets, cops aer more afraid of citizens carrying a gun, than bad guys carrying a gun, because deputies are scared of shooting a citizen who is shooting a gun while chasing a bad guy who just held him up. As a result, what would otherwise be a slam dunk (shooting somebody to death who is firing a weapon at somebody) is, instead, a life or death decision, which can easily cause a hesitation that could get the wrong guy killed.
A report does not have to be inaccurate to be misleading, or to be used to mislead. The following is an excellent example.
Decades ago, when I was in the US Navy, we had our annual squadron picnic, and as often happens, we had a softball game between the Officers, and the Chief Petty Officers. The Chiefs won the game.
The next day, in the Plan of the Day, the following news item was included. "Yesterday, the Officers vs Chiefs softball game was held, and the Chiefs won. Thus, the season ended with the Chiefs managing their only win, while the officers suffered their only loss."
The report is neither inaccurate nor misleading - it simply does not say what the Khmer Rouge claims it says. It is a study of a particular type of situation. The Khmer Rouge blogger dishonestly extended this to general situations, despite the FBI explicitly defining what they were reporting on.
The report itself has no meaning in regard to the efficacy of armed civilians as a deterrent to crime. This is just leftists being dishonest.
Your lack of specific refutations seems to indicate that my observations were not inaccurate after all.Correct, I didn't read the report.The answer is obvious.What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?
It wasn't the FBI, it was the gun-grabbers here cherry-picking one particular Federal sampling-study, in a transparent attempt to score a few agenda-points.
One can question the sampling base, and one can also question why it was not framed in the context of the total number of gun-owners, not just those involved in incidents.
It entirely disregards the huge, overwhelming numbers of gun-owners who are not involved in any kind of incident eligible for such study.
At a bare-bones minimum, it needed to take the overall ownership population into account in some manner, and, unless I missed something, it did not.
So you didn't bother to read the FBI report either but you felt qualified to make a vacuous comment instead.
I'm just not that interested in the details.
Incorrect, the observations made were not vacuous but based upon other commentary seen here, prior to posting.
What about those observations was incorrect?
1. that the report is merely one amongst many Federal -level studies on the subject?
2. that the sampling base (a mere 160 incidents) could not be questioned?
3. that the lack of a society-wide context for the study could not be questioned?
4. did the report not ignore the huge numbers of gun owners who were not involved in such incidents?
...or was it just...
5. my observation that gun-grabbers cherry-picked this one narrow Federal study out of a much broader menu of studies to choose from, as an agenda driving tactic?
If you actually read the report you will realize that you are coming across as a kneejerk deflector.
The FBI report deals with a very serious problem that is is only getting worse, not better.
If you ignore these findings you are going to end up being marginalized in the future.
Better to be informed about the problem that to pretend that it isn't happening.
Barring any indicators to the contrary, I'll settle for that.
Believe this folks. There WILL BE more and more of these mass shooting until your guns are taken away.
Actually, there hasn't been an increase in mass public shootings...
Brain 357...that is a great site for actual gun stories...however...I don't think your number is accurate...it that is the link you are using...I'll look more later....
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables
The biggest losers in teh world are "sheriff's auxiliary volunteers". Typically, they're know-nothing crapheads who are too stupid and incompetent to get a paying job in law enforcement, and they are otherwise unemployed, so they fill their hours with dreaming of being regular, contributing members of society...and their nights following the scanner and racing to check out every single call that comes in.
Ambulance chasers, psychopaths, lunatics.
You don't ever want a VOLUNTEER sheriff's deputy to be the one on call when you need assistance. Because they will always make things worse. Without exception.
BZZZT Wrong!
I don't think that's the type that bozo is.The biggest losers in teh world are "sheriff's auxiliary volunteers". Typically, they're know-nothing crapheads who are too stupid and incompetent to get a paying job in law enforcement, and they are otherwise unemployed, so they fill their hours with dreaming of being regular, contributing members of society...and their nights following the scanner and racing to check out every single call that comes in.
Ambulance chasers, psychopaths, lunatics.
You don't ever want a VOLUNTEER sheriff's deputy to be the one on call when you need assistance. Because they will always make things worse. Without exception.
In my area the Sheriff's Volunteers are mostly people with horses. They help with search and rescue and are generally good people.
Again, given that you will not highlight aspects of my observations that were inaccurate, as part of our exchange, I have little choice but to assume that you cannot.Your lack of specific refutations seems to indicate that my observations were not inaccurate after all.Correct, I didn't read the report.The answer is obvious.
It wasn't the FBI, it was the gun-grabbers here cherry-picking one particular Federal sampling-study, in a transparent attempt to score a few agenda-points.
One can question the sampling base, and one can also question why it was not framed in the context of the total number of gun-owners, not just those involved in incidents.
It entirely disregards the huge, overwhelming numbers of gun-owners who are not involved in any kind of incident eligible for such study.
At a bare-bones minimum, it needed to take the overall ownership population into account in some manner, and, unless I missed something, it did not.
So you didn't bother to read the FBI report either but you felt qualified to make a vacuous comment instead.
I'm just not that interested in the details.
Incorrect, the observations made were not vacuous but based upon other commentary seen here, prior to posting.
What about those observations was incorrect?
1. that the report is merely one amongst many Federal -level studies on the subject?
2. that the sampling base (a mere 160 incidents) could not be questioned?
3. that the lack of a society-wide context for the study could not be questioned?
4. did the report not ignore the huge numbers of gun owners who were not involved in such incidents?
...or was it just...
5. my observation that gun-grabbers cherry-picked this one narrow Federal study out of a much broader menu of studies to choose from, as an agenda driving tactic?
If you actually read the report you will realize that you are coming across as a kneejerk deflector.
The FBI report deals with a very serious problem that is is only getting worse, not better.
If you ignore these findings you are going to end up being marginalized in the future.
Better to be informed about the problem that to pretend that it isn't happening.
Barring any indicators to the contrary, I'll settle for that.
Your irrelevancy is self inflicted.
BZZZT Wrong!
Wrong about WHAT sploogy?
Are you saying the report is inaccurate?
Are you saying the report deals with generic crime situations - despite the explicit statement in the report that it does not?
Or are you just desperately flailing after being humiliated by me exposing the blog and this thread as a complete fraud?
Again, given that you will not highlight aspects of my observations that were inaccurate, as part of our exchange, I have little choice but to assume that you cannot.Your lack of specific refutations seems to indicate that my observations were not inaccurate after all.Correct, I didn't read the report.So you didn't bother to read the FBI report either but you felt qualified to make a vacuous comment instead.
I'm just not that interested in the details.
Incorrect, the observations made were not vacuous but based upon other commentary seen here, prior to posting.
What about those observations was incorrect?
1. that the report is merely one amongst many Federal -level studies on the subject?
2. that the sampling base (a mere 160 incidents) could not be questioned?
3. that the lack of a society-wide context for the study could not be questioned?
4. did the report not ignore the huge numbers of gun owners who were not involved in such incidents?
...or was it just...
5. my observation that gun-grabbers cherry-picked this one narrow Federal study out of a much broader menu of studies to choose from, as an agenda driving tactic?
If you actually read the report you will realize that you are coming across as a kneejerk deflector.
The FBI report deals with a very serious problem that is is only getting worse, not better.
If you ignore these findings you are going to end up being marginalized in the future.
Better to be informed about the problem that to pretend that it isn't happening.
Barring any indicators to the contrary, I'll settle for that.
Your irrelevancy is self inflicted.
You making an arbitrary blanket declaration of irrelevancy against anyone who has not actually read the report is set aside as inaccurate and presumptive.
You have to consider where the FBI stands politically. Holder runs the FBI and if Holder tells them to select 160 cases out of half a million in order to push Obama's anti 2nd Amendment agenda, that's what they will do. The "study" is aimed at the low information democrat base who don't even realize that they are propaganda targets. The guy who took down the jihad monster who was out to sever heads in Oklahoma was a part time deputy sheriff who worked in the factory. So it seems that more terrorists have been taken down by civilians this month than the FBI who couldn't find two Russian terrorists in Boston even when the KGB gave them the addresses.
You have to consider where the FBI stands politically. Holder runs the FBI and if Holder tells them to select 160 cases out of half a million in order to push Obama's anti 2nd Amendment agenda, that's what they will do. The "study" is aimed at the low information democrat base who don't even realize that they are propaganda targets. The guy who took down the jihad monster who was out to sever heads in Oklahoma was a part time deputy sheriff who worked in the factory. So it seems that more terrorists have been taken down by civilians this month than the FBI who couldn't find two Russian terrorists in Boston even when the KGB gave them the addresses.
Lying about the integrity of the FBI doesn't do much for your credibility.
No onus is placed upon me to prove relevancy.Again, given that you will not highlight aspects of my observations that were inaccurate, as part of our exchange, I have little choice but to assume that you cannot.Your lack of specific refutations seems to indicate that my observations were not inaccurate after all.Correct, I didn't read the report.
I'm just not that interested in the details.
Incorrect, the observations made were not vacuous but based upon other commentary seen here, prior to posting.
What about those observations was incorrect?
1. that the report is merely one amongst many Federal -level studies on the subject?
2. that the sampling base (a mere 160 incidents) could not be questioned?
3. that the lack of a society-wide context for the study could not be questioned?
4. did the report not ignore the huge numbers of gun owners who were not involved in such incidents?
...or was it just...
5. my observation that gun-grabbers cherry-picked this one narrow Federal study out of a much broader menu of studies to choose from, as an agenda driving tactic?
If you actually read the report you will realize that you are coming across as a kneejerk deflector.
The FBI report deals with a very serious problem that is is only getting worse, not better.
If you ignore these findings you are going to end up being marginalized in the future.
Better to be informed about the problem that to pretend that it isn't happening.
Barring any indicators to the contrary, I'll settle for that.
Your irrelevancy is self inflicted.
You making an arbitrary blanket declaration of irrelevancy against anyone who has not actually read the report is set aside as inaccurate and presumptive.
Onus is on you to prove the relevancy of your remarks which you cannot accomplish without reading the report. Since you refuse to do so your irrelevancy remains self inflicted.
