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.
I think you are wrong, and so does Crime Prevention Research.
UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950 - Crime Prevention Research Center
Wow, a John Lott special. He's part of the "Studies" that Klek did in the late 1990s and he's trying to play it smart. He's presenting those same facts and figures that Klek presented and was found to be lying about except he's not putting Klek's name on them.
The Original Study had both Klek and Lott's name on it. There is one exception between Lott and Klek, Lott is a much better liar and can do a much better presentation than Klek can. If I wasn't aware that Lott was a fabricator, I would believe his studies and outputs.
That's a response I was expecting from you. But given where these shootings have taken place in the past, it's hard to remember one not in a gun-free zone. It's usually high schools, colleges, stores or other public places where gun-free zones are.
The Dayton shooter deliberately waited until after 1:00 in the morning when all the bars closed. Nobody coming out of the bar would likely be legally armed. And if they were, he had bullet proof gear on as a backup. Given what they found on him, I'm sure he was not expecting nearly the response time of officers.
The Data is taken from Government Studies that either are made up or are completely different than presented. In the end, all roads lead back to Klek. And Klek is a fabricator.
It's really the only study I found. Now if you want to take one incident at a time, that could take quite a while given the fact a mass murder is considered (by FBI standards) as four people murdered. I don't consider that a mass murder. Hell, we had an incident of four getting killed here two weeks ago. It was domestic. Even some drugs deals end up with that amount of people getting killed.
However when we are talking about people that kill strangers in numbers for no reason, it's usually where nobody else is armed.
The problem is, the Klek and Lott Studies weren't really studies. They had a goal and manupulated the data to get to that forgone conclusion. Happens in "Science" all the time. Not so much anymore but it used to happen a bunch. And I imagine that there are a few "Studies" out there that are also done the same way. Luckily, the science community polices it's own.
It appears that the studies you would want to see aren't happening. Don't ask me why. Instead everyone keeps going back to the original Klek and Lott "Study" with it's outlandish claims and expects everyone to accept it. Afterall, on the surface, both Klek and Lott have some pretty impressive credentials. It just so happens that they are both dishonest.
So far, every reference I have ever seen to why we need more guns in a scientific manner refers back to Klek. It appears that those that are presenting the views are just plain lazy. When I say there is NO reputable study that shows that more guns means less violent gun crimes, that's is what I mean. Not to say that more guns won't affect violent gun crime one way or another, it's just that no one has ever proven in a scientific way that they will. And you response would be "But there are no studies that less guns means fewer gun violent crimes". True. But history says you are wrong where we saturated environments with guns and had to curtail them a bit. WE are not at the saturation level yet so right now, there are no scientific studies that show that fewer or more guns has any affect on violent gun crimes.
The second amendment is not a request or opinion. You disagree and it's time to get back to your 3rd world shit-hole. Attempting to disarm honest Americans... not a good idea.
As for the shootings, we will just have to learn how to deal with crazy people. So far it seems the education centers are mostly producing crazy people, as was the case with the CNN viewer who attacked law makers.
YOu seem to believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms. It doesn't. It applies to all arms including fists, feet, head butting, etc.. They took the word "Arms" from the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights which were written and adopted before the firearms were widely accepted. It was from a day when only Kings could afford "Weapons of War" or Arms of War. Why aren't you up in arms because the authorities won't allow people to wear long swords walking down the streets? Or not allow anyone to pull that Bowie Knife in a public place. How about playing catch with a Grenade with the pin still in place in a parking lot. I happen to like a good Broad Sword and you have infringed on my rights. What's the difference?
Wow, a John Lott special. He's part of the "Studies" that Klek did in the late 1990s and he's trying to play it smart. He's presenting those same facts and figures that Klek presented and was found to be lying about except he's not putting Klek's name on them.
The Original Study had both Klek and Lott's name on it. There is one exception between Lott and Klek, Lott is a much better liar and can do a much better presentation than Klek can. If I wasn't aware that Lott was a fabricator, I would believe his studies and outputs.
That's a response I was expecting from you. But given where these shootings have taken place in the past, it's hard to remember one not in a gun-free zone. It's usually high schools, colleges, stores or other public places where gun-free zones are.
The Dayton shooter deliberately waited until after 1:00 in the morning when all the bars closed. Nobody coming out of the bar would likely be legally armed. And if they were, he had bullet proof gear on as a backup. Given what they found on him, I'm sure he was not expecting nearly the response time of officers.
The Data is taken from Government Studies that either are made up or are completely different than presented. In the end, all roads lead back to Klek. And Klek is a fabricator.
It's really the only study I found. Now if you want to take one incident at a time, that could take quite a while given the fact a mass murder is considered (by FBI standards) as four people murdered. I don't consider that a mass murder. Hell, we had an incident of four getting killed here two weeks ago. It was domestic. Even some drugs deals end up with that amount of people getting killed.
However when we are talking about people that kill strangers in numbers for no reason, it's usually where nobody else is armed.
The problem is, the Klek and Lott Studies weren't really studies. They had a goal and manupulated the data to get to that forgone conclusion. Happens in "Science" all the time. Not so much anymore but it used to happen a bunch. And I imagine that there are a few "Studies" out there that are also done the same way. Luckily, the science community polices it's own.
It appears that the studies you would want to see aren't happening. Don't ask me why. Instead everyone keeps going back to the original Klek and Lott "Study" with it's outlandish claims and expects everyone to accept it. Afterall, on the surface, both Klek and Lott have some pretty impressive credentials. It just so happens that they are both dishonest.
So far, every reference I have ever seen to why we need more guns in a scientific manner refers back to Klek. It appears that those that are presenting the views are just plain lazy. When I say there is NO reputable study that shows that more guns means less violent gun crimes, that's is what I mean. Not to say that more guns won't affect violent gun crime one way or another, it's just that no one has ever proven in a scientific way that they will. And you response would be "But there are no studies that less guns means fewer gun violent crimes". True. But history says you are wrong where we saturated environments with guns and had to curtail them a bit. WE are not at the saturation level yet so right now, there are no scientific studies that show that fewer or more guns has any affect on violent gun crimes.
The only way one can prove a study is wrong is if they have a study stating differently. So perhaps the study is accurate and it's critics are the ones not to be trusted because it goes against the grain of their political beliefs.
The second amendment is not a request or opinion. You disagree and it's time to get back to your 3rd world shit-hole. Attempting to disarm honest Americans... not a good idea.
As for the shootings, we will just have to learn how to deal with crazy people. So far it seems the education centers are mostly producing crazy people, as was the case with the CNN viewer who attacked law makers.
YOu seem to believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms. It doesn't. It applies to all arms including fists, feet, head butting, etc.. They took the word "Arms" from the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights which were written and adopted before the firearms were widely accepted. It was from a day when only Kings could afford "Weapons of War" or Arms of War. Why aren't you up in arms because the authorities won't allow people to wear long swords walking down the streets? Or not allow anyone to pull that Bowie Knife in a public place. How about playing catch with a Grenade with the pin still in place in a parking lot. I happen to like a good Broad Sword and you have infringed on my rights. What's the difference?
Sounds like it's time to pack the bags Mr. UnAmerican. 2nd amendment was not written so that you could have your fists and feet... what ever that even means.
The second amendment is not a request or opinion. You disagree and it's time to get back to your 3rd world shit-hole. Attempting to disarm honest Americans... not a good idea.
As for the shootings, we will just have to learn how to deal with crazy people. So far it seems the education centers are mostly producing crazy people, as was the case with the CNN viewer who attacked law makers.
YOu seem to believe that the 2nd amendment only applies to firearms. It doesn't. It applies to all arms including fists, feet, head butting, etc.. They took the word "Arms" from the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights which were written and adopted before the firearms were widely accepted. It was from a day when only Kings could afford "Weapons of War" or Arms of War. Why aren't you up in arms because the authorities won't allow people to wear long swords walking down the streets? Or not allow anyone to pull that Bowie Knife in a public place. How about playing catch with a Grenade with the pin still in place in a parking lot. I happen to like a good Broad Sword and you have infringed on my rights. What's the difference?
Sounds like it's time to pack the bags Mr. UnAmerican. 2nd amendment was not written so that you could have your fists and feet... what ever that even means.
Then you don't understand what it might take for a civilian army to defeat a military one. The French Revolution was peasants with hands, feet, clubs and pitchforks against muskets. And how did that work out for the King again? I'll bet, for a short time, the Queen would disagree with you. You think a Gun makes you a big man on campus. If you have to depend on a gun for respect then that's not respect you are getting but fear. And when you get only fear you get rebellion. If it had meant just guns, it would have said just guns. Instead it used the same term that the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights use and used the term Arms. A large group of people can stop a shooter cold if they have nothing else to lose without their having to depend on a gun. This applies in stopping a potential mass shooter (happened in a school last year) or a Revolution for the French.
But since I disagree with your undeducated views, I must be UnAmerican. Well, cupcake, I paid more dues that you have probably. Go enlist, go fight a war, put your ass on the line like many in here have done. And then you have earned the right to ...... Actually, because others have put their asses on the line, we paid the price to give you that right. It's sad that you squander it so poorly.
That's a response I was expecting from you. But given where these shootings have taken place in the past, it's hard to remember one not in a gun-free zone. It's usually high schools, colleges, stores or other public places where gun-free zones are.
The Dayton shooter deliberately waited until after 1:00 in the morning when all the bars closed. Nobody coming out of the bar would likely be legally armed. And if they were, he had bullet proof gear on as a backup. Given what they found on him, I'm sure he was not expecting nearly the response time of officers.
The Data is taken from Government Studies that either are made up or are completely different than presented. In the end, all roads lead back to Klek. And Klek is a fabricator.
It's really the only study I found. Now if you want to take one incident at a time, that could take quite a while given the fact a mass murder is considered (by FBI standards) as four people murdered. I don't consider that a mass murder. Hell, we had an incident of four getting killed here two weeks ago. It was domestic. Even some drugs deals end up with that amount of people getting killed.
However when we are talking about people that kill strangers in numbers for no reason, it's usually where nobody else is armed.
The problem is, the Klek and Lott Studies weren't really studies. They had a goal and manupulated the data to get to that forgone conclusion. Happens in "Science" all the time. Not so much anymore but it used to happen a bunch. And I imagine that there are a few "Studies" out there that are also done the same way. Luckily, the science community polices it's own.
It appears that the studies you would want to see aren't happening. Don't ask me why. Instead everyone keeps going back to the original Klek and Lott "Study" with it's outlandish claims and expects everyone to accept it. Afterall, on the surface, both Klek and Lott have some pretty impressive credentials. It just so happens that they are both dishonest.
So far, every reference I have ever seen to why we need more guns in a scientific manner refers back to Klek. It appears that those that are presenting the views are just plain lazy. When I say there is NO reputable study that shows that more guns means less violent gun crimes, that's is what I mean. Not to say that more guns won't affect violent gun crime one way or another, it's just that no one has ever proven in a scientific way that they will. And you response would be "But there are no studies that less guns means fewer gun violent crimes". True. But history says you are wrong where we saturated environments with guns and had to curtail them a bit. WE are not at the saturation level yet so right now, there are no scientific studies that show that fewer or more guns has any affect on violent gun crimes.
The only way one can prove a study is wrong is if they have a study stating differently. So perhaps the study is accurate and it's critics are the ones not to be trusted because it goes against the grain of their political beliefs.
In the case of Klek or any study or article using that as the base, the data going in is patently false. Klek had a goal and forced the data to agree with his predeterminated results. The problem is, the original source he used didn't agree with what he claimed it said. And I haven't seen a single NON personal opinion piece that is not based on that original Klek study. It wasn't a study at all. It was a fabrication that looked like a study to present a personal opinion or bias as scientific information.
Now, if you wish, instead of presenting those "Studies" just say it's your personal opinion. I can accept that. I may not agree with it but at least that would be truthful. Just remember, much of your views do come from those erroneous "Scientific" reports from that one man repackaged over and over.
The Data is taken from Government Studies that either are made up or are completely different than presented. In the end, all roads lead back to Klek. And Klek is a fabricator.
It's really the only study I found. Now if you want to take one incident at a time, that could take quite a while given the fact a mass murder is considered (by FBI standards) as four people murdered. I don't consider that a mass murder. Hell, we had an incident of four getting killed here two weeks ago. It was domestic. Even some drugs deals end up with that amount of people getting killed.
However when we are talking about people that kill strangers in numbers for no reason, it's usually where nobody else is armed.
The problem is, the Klek and Lott Studies weren't really studies. They had a goal and manupulated the data to get to that forgone conclusion. Happens in "Science" all the time. Not so much anymore but it used to happen a bunch. And I imagine that there are a few "Studies" out there that are also done the same way. Luckily, the science community polices it's own.
It appears that the studies you would want to see aren't happening. Don't ask me why. Instead everyone keeps going back to the original Klek and Lott "Study" with it's outlandish claims and expects everyone to accept it. Afterall, on the surface, both Klek and Lott have some pretty impressive credentials. It just so happens that they are both dishonest.
So far, every reference I have ever seen to why we need more guns in a scientific manner refers back to Klek. It appears that those that are presenting the views are just plain lazy. When I say there is NO reputable study that shows that more guns means less violent gun crimes, that's is what I mean. Not to say that more guns won't affect violent gun crime one way or another, it's just that no one has ever proven in a scientific way that they will. And you response would be "But there are no studies that less guns means fewer gun violent crimes". True. But history says you are wrong where we saturated environments with guns and had to curtail them a bit. WE are not at the saturation level yet so right now, there are no scientific studies that show that fewer or more guns has any affect on violent gun crimes.
The only way one can prove a study is wrong is if they have a study stating differently. So perhaps the study is accurate and it's critics are the ones not to be trusted because it goes against the grain of their political beliefs.
In the case of Klek or any study or article using that as the base, the data going in is patently false. Klek had a goal and forced the data to agree with his predeterminated results. The problem is, the original source he used didn't agree with what he claimed it said. And I haven't seen a single NON personal opinion piece that is not based on that original Klek study. It wasn't a study at all. It was a fabrication that looked like a study to present a personal opinion or bias as scientific information.
Now, if you wish, instead of presenting those "Studies" just say it's your personal opinion. I can accept that. I may not agree with it but at least that would be truthful. Just remember, much of your views do come from those erroneous "Scientific" reports from that one man repackaged over and over.
I'm just waiting for you to provide a link of these people making such a claim and examples of how the study is wrong. The only possible way is if they use the FBI standards of four or more being killed as a mass murder.
Think about the weapons that were available. In order to accomplish a mass shooting you need the tool to actually kill the masses. There were shootings but they weren't called Mass yet. Oh, you might have 2 or 3 dead but the limit of the weapon didn't allow much more than that. (let's omit the mob 1920s and 30s) But in 1962 a new weapon was introduced call the AR-15 or the Colt Model 750. And in 1969, the US Army started training all their forces in using their version of it. The Army called their AR-15 Model 602 the M-16 due to all weapons needing to have a M identifier. Until then, the Air Force called theirs the AR-15 Model 601 but had to restamp them to read AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) until they started buying the M-16 which was the same weapon. For the first time, the Mass Shooter had the weapon designed for mass shooting. He had the tools he needed.
I am not talking about quantity of victims. No question the capability of weapons to kill more evolved. Let’s define a mass shooting as shooting one or more UNKNOWN innocent civilians. The point I am trying to make is that more than the capability of the weapon, more than the availability of the weapon, there has been a cultural shift in the mindset of people believing they can kill masses. That number goes up when you factor in non-gun mass killings involving bombs, cars, knives.
If I try and do a mass killing with a car or knife, I won't get much of a body count. Yes, the potential is there but the reality is, it's going to be limited to a low number. That might be an attempt at Mass Killing but it's going to fall far short.
As for bombs, it's almost impossible to get the materials to assemble a real mass killing bomb. Oh, sure, you can make Black Powder or even buy gun powder but not in enough quantity to do a lot of damage. If you purchase the amount of gun powder to do that you will raise enough flags long before you get to that point that you will fail. The best you can do is make a few small bombs that "Might" hurt or kill a couple or three people. Not a mass killing machine by any standard except for yours. As for the big stuff, trying to get that much Nitrogen Fertilizer will get your raided very quickly. Or buying that much Diesel Fuel without having an industrial or agricultural reason will definitely get your raided. Unlike France, the US learned from our own OKC bomber.
You say Mass means anything one or more. Get real. The number is much higher than 1 or 2 or even 8 or 9. There has been some over 50. That's more than a major Military Middle Eastern Battle. What you are trying to do is say that every murder is Mass Murder. It's not. A Mass Murder is when a person has the right tools and picks the right environment and has the driving mind set to kill as many people as they can with little or no regard for their own life. There has been only 2 cases where handguns have been used primarily for mass murder, the first one and the one in California. All the rest have involved a "Military Style" rifle with high capacity mags. And the two with handguns were rather unique but I won't go into what made them special.
So, are you saying that the will, the urge, the drive to go kill multiple people without cause, reason other than personal hate and anger has always been there and that because of innovations in firepower and automation, that is why we have seen an uptick in the last 55 years vs the previous 174 years? I think it is more than the means or vehicle. People intent on random mass murder have zero deterrent and fear no accountability for one. I also think culturally, we have moved away from human compassion and empathy.
We have had shootings all along. And before the gradual affect of the 1934 National Firearms Act, there were plenty of Mass Shootings because the tools were available. It took them 10 years to get those tools out of normal circulation and the mass shootings stopped. That is until another weapon of war came about in large numbers. Now, almost anyone could afford the tool. The nutcases have always been there but they didn't have the tool. Today, they have the tool and are using it. Someone pointed out that during a certain time period that something was different that prevented the mass shootings. Well, that difference was between the time of getting the Thompson, Grease Gun and BAR off the streets and when the AR and the AK became the in fashion nutcase mass shooting tool. Yes, right after his 1965 cutoff, the AK and the AR started hitting the streets in semi auto form. And that is the only difference. You can make all kinds of excuses but you can't change that fact. The Tools of War were on the Streets and used exactly for the purpose they were designed for. Kill a lot of people in a very short time period.
Prove we have had shootings all along, faggot. I call total bullshit, straight up, bitch!
I am not talking about quantity of victims. No question the capability of weapons to kill more evolved. Let’s define a mass shooting as shooting one or more UNKNOWN innocent civilians. The point I am trying to make is that more than the capability of the weapon, more than the availability of the weapon, there has been a cultural shift in the mindset of people believing they can kill masses. That number goes up when you factor in non-gun mass killings involving bombs, cars, knives.
If I try and do a mass killing with a car or knife, I won't get much of a body count. Yes, the potential is there but the reality is, it's going to be limited to a low number. That might be an attempt at Mass Killing but it's going to fall far short.
As for bombs, it's almost impossible to get the materials to assemble a real mass killing bomb. Oh, sure, you can make Black Powder or even buy gun powder but not in enough quantity to do a lot of damage. If you purchase the amount of gun powder to do that you will raise enough flags long before you get to that point that you will fail. The best you can do is make a few small bombs that "Might" hurt or kill a couple or three people. Not a mass killing machine by any standard except for yours. As for the big stuff, trying to get that much Nitrogen Fertilizer will get your raided very quickly. Or buying that much Diesel Fuel without having an industrial or agricultural reason will definitely get your raided. Unlike France, the US learned from our own OKC bomber.
You say Mass means anything one or more. Get real. The number is much higher than 1 or 2 or even 8 or 9. There has been some over 50. That's more than a major Military Middle Eastern Battle. What you are trying to do is say that every murder is Mass Murder. It's not. A Mass Murder is when a person has the right tools and picks the right environment and has the driving mind set to kill as many people as they can with little or no regard for their own life. There has been only 2 cases where handguns have been used primarily for mass murder, the first one and the one in California. All the rest have involved a "Military Style" rifle with high capacity mags. And the two with handguns were rather unique but I won't go into what made them special.
So, are you saying that the will, the urge, the drive to go kill multiple people without cause, reason other than personal hate and anger has always been there and that because of innovations in firepower and automation, that is why we have seen an uptick in the last 55 years vs the previous 174 years? I think it is more than the means or vehicle. People intent on random mass murder have zero deterrent and fear no accountability for one. I also think culturally, we have moved away from human compassion and empathy.
We have had shootings all along. And before the gradual affect of the 1934 National Firearms Act, there were plenty of Mass Shootings because the tools were available. It took them 10 years to get those tools out of normal circulation and the mass shootings stopped. That is until another weapon of war came about in large numbers. Now, almost anyone could afford the tool. The nutcases have always been there but they didn't have the tool. Today, they have the tool and are using it. Someone pointed out that during a certain time period that something was different that prevented the mass shootings. Well, that difference was between the time of getting the Thompson, Grease Gun and BAR off the streets and when the AR and the AK became the in fashion nutcase mass shooting tool. Yes, right after his 1965 cutoff, the AK and the AR started hitting the streets in semi auto form. And that is the only difference. You can make all kinds of excuses but you can't change that fact. The Tools of War were on the Streets and used exactly for the purpose they were designed for. Kill a lot of people in a very short time period.
Prove we have had shootings all along, faggot. I call total bullshit, straight up, bitch!
Just before my next action, here is something for everyone else to think about. The reason that the 1934 National Firearms Act was created was because of the MASS SHOOTINGS. Duh.
Now, I let you out of the manure bin once but this time you go in and stay.
It's really the only study I found. Now if you want to take one incident at a time, that could take quite a while given the fact a mass murder is considered (by FBI standards) as four people murdered. I don't consider that a mass murder. Hell, we had an incident of four getting killed here two weeks ago. It was domestic. Even some drugs deals end up with that amount of people getting killed.
However when we are talking about people that kill strangers in numbers for no reason, it's usually where nobody else is armed.
The problem is, the Klek and Lott Studies weren't really studies. They had a goal and manupulated the data to get to that forgone conclusion. Happens in "Science" all the time. Not so much anymore but it used to happen a bunch. And I imagine that there are a few "Studies" out there that are also done the same way. Luckily, the science community polices it's own.
It appears that the studies you would want to see aren't happening. Don't ask me why. Instead everyone keeps going back to the original Klek and Lott "Study" with it's outlandish claims and expects everyone to accept it. Afterall, on the surface, both Klek and Lott have some pretty impressive credentials. It just so happens that they are both dishonest.
So far, every reference I have ever seen to why we need more guns in a scientific manner refers back to Klek. It appears that those that are presenting the views are just plain lazy. When I say there is NO reputable study that shows that more guns means less violent gun crimes, that's is what I mean. Not to say that more guns won't affect violent gun crime one way or another, it's just that no one has ever proven in a scientific way that they will. And you response would be "But there are no studies that less guns means fewer gun violent crimes". True. But history says you are wrong where we saturated environments with guns and had to curtail them a bit. WE are not at the saturation level yet so right now, there are no scientific studies that show that fewer or more guns has any affect on violent gun crimes.
The only way one can prove a study is wrong is if they have a study stating differently. So perhaps the study is accurate and it's critics are the ones not to be trusted because it goes against the grain of their political beliefs.
In the case of Klek or any study or article using that as the base, the data going in is patently false. Klek had a goal and forced the data to agree with his predeterminated results. The problem is, the original source he used didn't agree with what he claimed it said. And I haven't seen a single NON personal opinion piece that is not based on that original Klek study. It wasn't a study at all. It was a fabrication that looked like a study to present a personal opinion or bias as scientific information.
Now, if you wish, instead of presenting those "Studies" just say it's your personal opinion. I can accept that. I may not agree with it but at least that would be truthful. Just remember, much of your views do come from those erroneous "Scientific" reports from that one man repackaged over and over.
I'm just waiting for you to provide a link of these people making such a claim and examples of how the study is wrong. The only possible way is if they use the FBI standards of four or more being killed as a mass murder.
Someone else already did. I don't feel the need to keep repeating the same thing over and over to people that just hammer like you do just to try and cloud the issue. This comes up about once a month or so and the same routine is done. Sorry, no more free rides. You want to back up your own claims, fine. I'm up for that. But using a liar and a charleton that everyone uses as the cite (every cite refers back to the same person and the same original fake "study"). Come up with something more recent. As it stands right now, CDC is back in that business and they don't support your claims. And trying to use the FBI as a source? Go ahead. They use the CDC for their information as well. Go to the source and get your information. But, like your Orange Buddy, the CDC is just lying and the only time the FBI can be trusted is when you think they agree with you. Well, they don't. I don't have time for this discussion. It's just a rehash of the same old tired BS. Come up with something else like which Gin is the best.
The problem is, the Klek and Lott Studies weren't really studies. They had a goal and manupulated the data to get to that forgone conclusion. Happens in "Science" all the time. Not so much anymore but it used to happen a bunch. And I imagine that there are a few "Studies" out there that are also done the same way. Luckily, the science community polices it's own.
It appears that the studies you would want to see aren't happening. Don't ask me why. Instead everyone keeps going back to the original Klek and Lott "Study" with it's outlandish claims and expects everyone to accept it. Afterall, on the surface, both Klek and Lott have some pretty impressive credentials. It just so happens that they are both dishonest.
So far, every reference I have ever seen to why we need more guns in a scientific manner refers back to Klek. It appears that those that are presenting the views are just plain lazy. When I say there is NO reputable study that shows that more guns means less violent gun crimes, that's is what I mean. Not to say that more guns won't affect violent gun crime one way or another, it's just that no one has ever proven in a scientific way that they will. And you response would be "But there are no studies that less guns means fewer gun violent crimes". True. But history says you are wrong where we saturated environments with guns and had to curtail them a bit. WE are not at the saturation level yet so right now, there are no scientific studies that show that fewer or more guns has any affect on violent gun crimes.
The only way one can prove a study is wrong is if they have a study stating differently. So perhaps the study is accurate and it's critics are the ones not to be trusted because it goes against the grain of their political beliefs.
In the case of Klek or any study or article using that as the base, the data going in is patently false. Klek had a goal and forced the data to agree with his predeterminated results. The problem is, the original source he used didn't agree with what he claimed it said. And I haven't seen a single NON personal opinion piece that is not based on that original Klek study. It wasn't a study at all. It was a fabrication that looked like a study to present a personal opinion or bias as scientific information.
Now, if you wish, instead of presenting those "Studies" just say it's your personal opinion. I can accept that. I may not agree with it but at least that would be truthful. Just remember, much of your views do come from those erroneous "Scientific" reports from that one man repackaged over and over.
I'm just waiting for you to provide a link of these people making such a claim and examples of how the study is wrong. The only possible way is if they use the FBI standards of four or more being killed as a mass murder.
Someone else already did. I don't feel the need to keep repeating the same thing over and over to people that just hammer like you do just to try and cloud the issue. This comes up about once a month or so and the same routine is done. Sorry, no more free rides. You want to back up your own claims, fine. I'm up for that. But using a liar and a charleton that everyone uses as the cite (every cite refers back to the same person and the same original fake "study"). Come up with something more recent. As it stands right now, CDC is back in that business and they don't support your claims. And trying to use the FBI as a source? Go ahead. They use the CDC for their information as well. Go to the source and get your information. But, like your Orange Buddy, the CDC is just lying and the only time the FBI can be trusted is when you think they agree with you. Well, they don't. I don't have time for this discussion. It's just a rehash of the same old tired BS. Come up with something else like which Gin is the best.
The only thing I said about the FBI is that they use the standard of four or more people getting killed to be considered a mass murder. It's very misleading from what most of us consider a mass murder. Killing four or more people can result from a domestic issue, a drug sales issue, or other issues of direct conflict. But it's not the way most of us look at a mass gun murder. As I stated earlier, the last one here was about three weeks ago, and coincidently, about ten houses away from where I used to live as a child. The FBI will consider that a mass murder even though it was strictly domestic.
As far a somebody posting credible evidence of a conflicting report, I have yet to see it, and when I join a thread from the beginning, I usually read every post.
So it seems, only one person or organization did such a study. But because only one person or organization took the time to do it doesn't mean it's wrong simply because others don't like the results.
