Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones

[bripat9643]

This is science, so the libturds should be supporting the elimination of gun free zones. Watch how they make a thousand excuses for the failure of their gun control policies:

Report 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones​

The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. Everytown actually claimed 86% of such incidents occurred in places where guns were allowed.

CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown's "inclusion of attacks in private homes" and "numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves." For example, Everytown "[ignores] rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns [for self-defense]" in certain cities, and they fail to recognize that "allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves."​

 

[007]

It doesn't get much more basic than this...

 

[Youch]

Liberals are not interested in facts. Give them something emotional, like the SCOTUS ignoring the voice, votes and rights of citizens of states, and they will chew all day long. But present facts such as this and they disappear behind the fake potted plant in the corner.

 

[S.J.]

Get ready for the deflection posts from the left.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

 

[candycorn]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

 

[JoeB131]

So by htat logic, the fact that 8% were "Gun Friendly Zones" didn't stop mass shootings, then?

 

[LeftofLeft]

What is the first mass shooting anyone remembers? To me, University of Texas 1965. Since then, Columbine, Va Tech, Sandy Hook, Arizona Political Rally. These were peimarily academic sanctuaries. In all cases, the perpetrators were motivated to kill and mame as many people as possible, quickly.

Think about this. The 2nd Amendment was passed in 1791. Before University of Texas 1965, 174 years later, how many mass shootings were there? If you wanted to commit mass murder via shooting, chances are you would not get far with your goal because you would be shot.

Motivated humans kill people. Deterrent and Fear is the only thing to prevent.

 

[bripat9643]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

It's as valid as any claim about discrimination based on the percentage of blacks in an occupation. It's actually far more valid since mass killers have said they deliberately chose an environment where guns are not allowed.

 

[bripat9643]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

So far the record is none. Civilian shooters have a better record than the police of avoiding collateral damage. For one thing, the people on the scene are much more likely to know who the bad guys are than some officers who arrive minutes after the shooting starts.

 

[kaz]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

Thank God no one shoots back. That could make a bad situation where a guy shooting at a crowd with no one shooting back into a tragedy.

Wow.

 

[bripat9643]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

Thank God no one shoots back. That could make a bad situation where a guy shooting at a crowd with no one shooting back into a tragedy.

Wow.

Yeah, we wouldn't want the perpetrator to get harmed, now would we?

 

[kaz]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

Thank God no one shoots back. That could make a bad situation where a guy shooting at a crowd with no one shooting back into a tragedy.

Wow.

Yeah, we wouldn't want the perpetrator to get harmed, now would we?

Certainly not. That would just be another victim.

 

[kaz]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

It cracks me up when liberals find a website with logical fallacies then show your complete and utter inability to process what they mean. A post hoc fallacy is taking two events and assuming a causal relationship.

Stating a statistic of 92% is not assuming a causal relationship between two events, it's establishing a causal relationship between two events. When you are presented with a cause, you have address the argument, not just run around like your hair is on fire yelling post hoc, post hoc.

 

[candycorn]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

So far the record is none. Civilian shooters have a better record than the police of avoiding collateral damage. For one thing, the people on the scene are much more likely to know who the bad guys are than some officers who arrive minutes after the shooting starts.

Source?

 

[turtledude]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

you are an idiot and a prevaricator. The Aurora shooter picked that theater over ones that 1) had more potential victims
2) or were closer

because t was a gun free zone

We never see any mass shootings at

1) gun stores

2) firearms training facilities

3) USPSA combat pistol matches

4) ATA registered trap shoots

5) small bore rifle leagues

6) Steel shoots

or other places where lots of good shooters are packing weapons

 

[Spoonman]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

probably 1 - the criminal doing the shooting

 

[kaz]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

Of course what is also not mentioned is that when some guy starts shooting back how many more deaths will occur when there is now a cross-fire taking place.

So far the record is none. Civilian shooters have a better record than the police of avoiding collateral damage. For one thing, the people on the scene are much more likely to know who the bad guys are than some officers who arrive minutes after the shooting starts.

Source?

So if bripat shows you that, would it make any difference to you? I lose interest in sourcing anything I don't feel like with liberals because you say this, get it, and it makes no difference to you. So why should anyone bother until you put down the kool-aid?

I still can't get over your last post where if you were in a crowd of people being picked off by a gunman, you'd feel in greater danger if any of you had a gun to shoot back. I mean wow.

 

[Wildman]

Liberals are not interested in facts. Give them something emotional, like the SCOTUS ignoring the voice, votes and rights of citizens of states, and they will chew all day long. But present facts such as this and they disappear behind the fake potted plant in the corner.

=================
when they do hide behind that fake potted plant.., they will be hiding behind another liertard faking it. .......

libertards really are fakes, potted plant or not, most are the floor tile we walk on.

 

[Wildman]

"Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

So you decided to start a thread about it to exhibit your ignorance of a post hoc fallacy.

There is no 'evidence' that 'gun free zones' foster mass shootings, that's an incorrect inference on your part.

The notion that criminals 'seek out' gun free zones to commit their crimes is unfounded idiocy; equally idiotic is the idea that prohibiting 'gun free zones' will prevent mass shootings.

==================

Get ready for the deflection posts from the left.

and it only took one post from a lamebrain libertard.