I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The Gun Violence Archive provides their definitions and methodologies. Go to the home page and check the drop down menu.
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
You'd have to ask the NRA. I'm not them.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
You'd have to ask the NRA. I'm not them.
Does that not bother you, though? That a corrupt organization actively spends its members’ dues to prevent the understanding of the underlying issues relating to gun violence and how to prevent it, minimize and be sane about 2A rights and “responsibilities?”
I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
You'd have to ask the NRA. I'm not them.
Does that not bother you, though? That a corrupt organization actively spends its members’ dues to prevent the understanding of the underlying issues relating to gun violence and how to prevent it, minimize and be sane about 2A rights and “responsibilities?”
I guess it doesn't really bother me. They are an organization with an agenda, just like every other organization. One either agrees with that agenda or they don't. Members support the organization because they believe in their rhetoric. Otherwise, they stop being members.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
You'd have to ask the NRA. I'm not them.
Does that not bother you, though? That a corrupt organization actively spends its members’ dues to prevent the understanding of the underlying issues relating to gun violence and how to prevent it, minimize and be sane about 2A rights and “responsibilities?”
I guess it doesn't really bother me. They are an organization with an agenda, just like every other organization. One either agrees with that agenda or they don't. Members support the organization because they believe in their rhetoric. Otherwise, they stop being members.
Their agenda ends in death, for profit, not wanting to change, to reduce the negative impacts. You’re okay with that? Shrug of the shoulders, it seems? Meh. Am I right?
Some members pay dues out of “convenience.” Is that “responsible?”
I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
You'd have to ask the NRA. I'm not them.
Does that not bother you, though? That a corrupt organization actively spends its members’ dues to prevent the understanding of the underlying issues relating to gun violence and how to prevent it, minimize and be sane about 2A rights and “responsibilities?”
I guess it doesn't really bother me. They are an organization with an agenda, just like every other organization. One either agrees with that agenda or they don't. Members support the organization because they believe in their rhetoric. Otherwise, they stop being members.
Their agenda ends in death, for profit, not wanting to change, to reduce the negative impacts. You’re okay with that? Shrug of the shoulders, it seems? Meh. Am I right?
Some members pay dues out of “convenience.” Is that “responsible?”
I think you are grossly oversimplifying.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
I'm interested to know what criteria is being used to label them as "school shootings". Particularly, two in Michigan in April. Schools have been closed since before April. The term "school shooting" conjures images of people being gunned down in classrooms and hallways but that clearly wasn't the case for the ones in April in Michigan. What are the stats derived from?
Did someone target a house across the street from school in a drive by? Maybe someone down the block from a school was the victim of a home invasion or someone who lived next door to a school committed suicide with a gun.
All of those situations are tragic for sure, but I wouldn't say that any of them should be considered as "school shootings".
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
You'd have to ask the NRA. I'm not them.
Does that not bother you, though? That a corrupt organization actively spends its members’ dues to prevent the understanding of the underlying issues relating to gun violence and how to prevent it, minimize and be sane about 2A rights and “responsibilities?”
I guess it doesn't really bother me. They are an organization with an agenda, just like every other organization. One either agrees with that agenda or they don't. Members support the organization because they believe in their rhetoric. Otherwise, they stop being members.
Their agenda ends in death, for profit, not wanting to change, to reduce the negative impacts. You’re okay with that? Shrug of the shoulders, it seems? Meh. Am I right?
Some members pay dues out of “convenience.” Is that “responsible?”
You obviously have your opinions about guns and their place in American society and I have different opinions. No need for a bunch of back and forth that is not going to result in anything.
Some people side with the victims of a home invasion and some people side with the thugs who hold women and children at gunpoint.
I know which side I choose and I'm not likely to move.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
You obviously have your opinions about guns and their place in American society and I have different opinions. No need for a bunch of back and forth that is not going to result in anything.
Some people side with the victims of a home invasion and some people side with the thugs who hold women and children at gunpoint.
I know which side I choose and I'm not likely to move.
And yet, despite your opinions, you’re not willing, or unable to discuss them, to find common ground in an effort to reduce the carnage. So, thanks for being honest, I thought there was a potential “middle.” I guess I could respond with........ but I’d be banned. Instead, it’s evident that, at least with you, there’s no rationality or common ground, so we shouldn’t engage on this issue. Nice society we have.
Be well, stay safe, keep em locked and loaded. You might need ‘em. 💯
Over and over again for the last 563 pages of this thread I have shared my opinions. Here they are again:
Universal background checks should be required for all gun sales, private parties are not exempt.
People should be held accountable for every single round that leaves their firearm.
All privately owned firearms should be secured with locks and made inaccessible to children.
Live fire and safety training should be required for first time buyers and proficiency training at intervals for current owners.
Nationally recognized concealed carry should be adopted with requirements for proficiency and pending deeper screening standards.
I do find value in having an armed civilian population, for both political and personal protection purposes.
Currently adopted firearms laws should be enforced instead of focusing efforts on banning a particular type of firearm that is used in a very small percentage of overall, criminal gun deaths.
Suicide awareness and mental health services really need help in the US.
Criminals do not obey gun laws and they don't read "Gun Free Zone" signs.
PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP WANTING TO KILL EACH OTHER.
That's a start, anyway.
ETA: All gun owners are not Trump supporters, rednecks, irresponsible, toothless, uneducated, socially inferior, paranoid, Republican or religious zealots. Please stop acting like they are.
Post edited by dudeman on
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Yep, those massive amounts of gun laws work awesome for Chicago.
:-?
Unsung... you keep spouting this one, but if this is all you have... then the pro-gun side has nothing. Even the most simple fool can understand the general idea that strict laws in one state can do nothing when neighbouring states do not feature the same laws.
So please stop taking us for less than the most simple fools.
Kinda like Covid-19 yo! But you know, differences of opinion, facts, history snd 500+ pages of opinion. I’ll respond later, dudeman.
Yep, those massive amounts of gun laws work awesome for Chicago.
:-?
Unsung... you keep spouting this one, but if this is all you have... then the pro-gun side has nothing. Even the most simple fool can understand the general idea that strict laws in one state can do nothing when neighbouring states do not feature the same laws.
So please stop taking us for less than the most simple fools.
Kinda like Covid-19 yo! But you know, differences of opinion, facts, history snd 500+ pages of opinion. I’ll respond later, dudeman.
OK, buddy. Have a great day!
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Over and over again for the last 563 pages of this thread I have shared my opinions. Here they are again:
Universal background checks should be required for all gun sales, private parties are not exempt.
People should be held accountable for every single round that leaves their firearm.
All privately owned firearms should be secured with locks and made inaccessible to children.
Live fire and safety training should be required for first time buyers and proficiency training at intervals for current owners.
Nationally recognized concealed carry should be adopted with requirements for proficiency and pending deeper screening standards.
I do find value in having an armed civilian population, for both political and personal protection purposes.
Currently adopted firearms laws should be enforced instead of focusing efforts on banning a particular type of firearm that is used in a very small percentage of overall, criminal gun deaths.
Suicide awareness and mental health services really need help in the US.
Criminals do not obey gun laws and they don't read "Gun Free Zone" signs.
PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP WANTING TO KILL EACH OTHER.
That's a start, anyway.
ETA: All gun owners are not Trump supporters, rednecks, irresponsible, toothless, uneducated, socially inferior, paranoid, Republican or religious zealots. Please stop acting like they are.
And yet, In ‘Murica, “our freedom?” I particularly like the guy huffing a cig because he’s not sure his “weapon” is big enough for the crowd size and the other guy with the purple tape holding his clips together in case he needs 64 shots to stop the threat. On a Sunday. At the State House. In Michigan.
With so many disparate findings swirling about, it can be difficult to determine where the balance of evidence lies. But a report from Rand Corp., a nonprofit think tank, has distilled reams of gun policy research published since 1995 to tease out the scholarly consensus.
In other words, they’ve waded through thousands of findings so you (and your elected representatives) don’t have to.
Not all academic studies are created equal. Many simply show correlations between various phenomena — links between assault weapon bans and mass shootings, for instance, or between suicide rates and gun purchasing habits. Such research can be useful when higher-quality data isn’t available.
But policymaking requires higher-caliber evidence, from studies that go beyond simple correlations to demonstrate a causal effect. Distinguishing those studies from less-powerful ones was one of the chief objectives of the Rand report.
“For our analysis, we looked for studies that made stronger claims to identifying a causal effect of individual laws,” said Andrew Morral, one of the authors of the report. “They had to show that changes (for instance, in suicide rates) that are attributed to the law occurred only after the law was implemented (not before), and did not occur in states where the law was not implemented.”
They narrowed down thousands of studies to those that met high standards for causal evidence — just 123 of them since 1995. Taken together, this research yielded a number of conclusions.
First, there was a clear consensus (indicated by three or more high-quality studies in agreement) that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves in public even if retreating is an option, result in higher overall rates of gun homicide. The higher rates aren’t simply from “bad guys” getting shot; the research shows the additional deaths created by stand-your-ground laws far surpass the documented cases of defensive gun use in the United States.
There was also a broad consensus that child access prevention laws, which set requirements for how guns must be stored at home, are effective in reducing self-inflicted gun injuries among children and adults.
No other policy realm showed the clear scholarly consensus as did stand-your-ground and child access prevention, although there were a number of cases in which the research yielded more moderate evidence of a policy’s effect, by way of two or more high-quality studies in agreement.
For instance, there is moderate evidence that banning gun purchases by people under domestic violence restraining orders decreases intimate-partner homicides. The research also showed moderate evidence that background checks reduce gun homicides, and that waiting periods for firearms purchases reduce gun suicides and overall homicide.
Finally, there was what the authors call “limited” evidence — just one high-quality study, not contradicted by other research — for a number of policy outcomes. There’s some evidence, for instance, that licensing requirements reduce suicides, that bans on gun ownership among the mentally ill reduce violent crime, that “right-to-carry” laws increase violent crime, that minimum purchasing age requirements reduce youth suicides, and that assault weapon bans end up boosting sales of those weapons in the period before the ban takes place.
Beyond that, the available high-quality research remains inconsistent or nonexistent. There is no scholarly consensus, for instance, on the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shooting rates, or on the overall effects of extreme risk prevention (“red flag”) laws. There similarly is little to no evidence on the efficacy of mandatory gun-safety training. High-quality research into gun-free zones and armed school employees is nonexistent, and there’s virtually no good research examining effects of policies on defensive gun use.
That general lack of high-quality evidence is one of the overarching themes of the report. “One reason there is such limited and inconclusive research on topics related to gun policy is that the federal government has not supported much research on gun violence prevention for most of the last 25 years,” Morral said. But he notes that last year Congress approved the first outlay of federal money for gun research since the mid-1990s.
First, there was a clear consensus (indicated by three or more high-quality studies in agreement) that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves in public even if retreating is an option, result in higher overall rates of gun homicide.
No shit, that's the purpose of the law, to stand your ground...
The rest is all common knowledge if you own a gun or want to ban them I'd guess.
First, there was a clear consensus (indicated by three or more high-quality studies in agreement) that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves in public even if retreating is an option, result in higher overall rates of gun homicide.
No shit, that's the purpose of the law, to stand your ground...
The rest is all common knowledge if you own a gun or want to ban them I'd guess.
Guess you didn't read this far:
The higher rates aren’t simply from “bad guys” getting shot; the research shows the additional deaths created by stand-your-ground laws far surpass the documented cases of defensive gun use in the United States.
First, there was a clear consensus (indicated by three or more high-quality studies in agreement) that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves in public even if retreating is an option, result in higher overall rates of gun homicide.
No shit, that's the purpose of the law, to stand your ground...
The rest is all common knowledge if you own a gun or want to ban them I'd guess.
Guess you didn't read this far:
The higher rates aren’t simply from “bad guys” getting shot; the research shows the additional deaths created by stand-your-ground laws far surpass the documented cases of defensive gun use in the United States.
Common knowledge, I guess?
If I am reading this right then people are getting shot and using the stand your ground clause improperly? I'm not sure what they are eluding to?
First, there was a clear consensus (indicated by three or more high-quality studies in agreement) that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves in public even if retreating is an option, result in higher overall rates of gun homicide.
No shit, that's the purpose of the law, to stand your ground...
The rest is all common knowledge if you own a gun or want to ban them I'd guess.
Guess you didn't read this far:
The higher rates aren’t simply from “bad guys” getting shot; the research shows the additional deaths created by stand-your-ground laws far surpass the documented cases of defensive gun use in the United States.
Common knowledge, I guess?
If I am reading this right then people are getting shot and using the stand your ground clause improperly? I'm not sure what they are eluding to?
Comments
The NRA has been successful in preventing a great amount of defined data to be collected by the CDC, HHS and FBI and local, state and federal law enforcement. Why is that?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Are you a proponent of 2A rights?
Do you own firearms?
just asking.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Some members pay dues out of “convenience.” Is that “responsible?”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Some people side with the victims of a home invasion and some people side with the thugs who hold women and children at gunpoint.
I know which side I choose and I'm not likely to move.
Be well, stay safe, keep em locked and loaded. You might need ‘em. 💯
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Universal background checks should be required for all gun sales, private parties are not exempt.
People should be held accountable for every single round that leaves their firearm.
All privately owned firearms should be secured with locks and made inaccessible to children.
Live fire and safety training should be required for first time buyers and proficiency training at intervals for current owners.
Nationally recognized concealed carry should be adopted with requirements for proficiency and pending deeper screening standards.
I do find value in having an armed civilian population, for both political and personal protection purposes.
Currently adopted firearms laws should be enforced instead of focusing efforts on banning a particular type of firearm that is used in a very small percentage of overall, criminal gun deaths.
Suicide awareness and mental health services really need help in the US.
Criminals do not obey gun laws and they don't read "Gun Free Zone" signs.
PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP WANTING TO KILL EACH OTHER.
That's a start, anyway.
ETA: All gun owners are not Trump supporters, rednecks, irresponsible, toothless, uneducated, socially inferior, paranoid, Republican or religious zealots. Please stop acting like they are.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'll go back to my bunker now.
So whenever someone asks I say, it's fine. But what about?!?! Nope. It's fine.
Police: At least 10 killed in shooting rampage in Canada
https://news.yahoo.com/canadian-police-look-shooter-possibly-135549328.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun-activists-using-facebook-groups-push-anti-quarantine-protests/
oh the look of paranoia.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
8/28/98- Camden, NJ
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
Gun control discussions often get mired in competing academic claims regarding the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of various policy options.
Do concealed carry laws increase violent crime or make communities safer? Do assault weapon bans reduce mass shootings or do they have no effect? Do background checks reduce homicides and suicides or are they ineffective?
With so many disparate findings swirling about, it can be difficult to determine where the balance of evidence lies. But a report from Rand Corp., a nonprofit think tank, has distilled reams of gun policy research published since 1995 to tease out the scholarly consensus.
In other words, they’ve waded through thousands of findings so you (and your elected representatives) don’t have to.
Not all academic studies are created equal. Many simply show correlations between various phenomena — links between assault weapon bans and mass shootings, for instance, or between suicide rates and gun purchasing habits. Such research can be useful when higher-quality data isn’t available.
But policymaking requires higher-caliber evidence, from studies that go beyond simple correlations to demonstrate a causal effect. Distinguishing those studies from less-powerful ones was one of the chief objectives of the Rand report.
“For our analysis, we looked for studies that made stronger claims to identifying a causal effect of individual laws,” said Andrew Morral, one of the authors of the report. “They had to show that changes (for instance, in suicide rates) that are attributed to the law occurred only after the law was implemented (not before), and did not occur in states where the law was not implemented.”
They narrowed down thousands of studies to those that met high standards for causal evidence — just 123 of them since 1995. Taken together, this research yielded a number of conclusions.
First, there was a clear consensus (indicated by three or more high-quality studies in agreement) that stand-your-ground laws, which allow people to use guns to defend themselves in public even if retreating is an option, result in higher overall rates of gun homicide. The higher rates aren’t simply from “bad guys” getting shot; the research shows the additional deaths created by stand-your-ground laws far surpass the documented cases of defensive gun use in the United States.
There was also a broad consensus that child access prevention laws, which set requirements for how guns must be stored at home, are effective in reducing self-inflicted gun injuries among children and adults.
No other policy realm showed the clear scholarly consensus as did stand-your-ground and child access prevention, although there were a number of cases in which the research yielded more moderate evidence of a policy’s effect, by way of two or more high-quality studies in agreement.
For instance, there is moderate evidence that banning gun purchases by people under domestic violence restraining orders decreases intimate-partner homicides. The research also showed moderate evidence that background checks reduce gun homicides, and that waiting periods for firearms purchases reduce gun suicides and overall homicide.
Finally, there was what the authors call “limited” evidence — just one high-quality study, not contradicted by other research — for a number of policy outcomes. There’s some evidence, for instance, that licensing requirements reduce suicides, that bans on gun ownership among the mentally ill reduce violent crime, that “right-to-carry” laws increase violent crime, that minimum purchasing age requirements reduce youth suicides, and that assault weapon bans end up boosting sales of those weapons in the period before the ban takes place.
That general lack of high-quality evidence is one of the overarching themes of the report. “One reason there is such limited and inconclusive research on topics related to gun policy is that the federal government has not supported much research on gun violence prevention for most of the last 25 years,” Morral said. But he notes that last year Congress approved the first outlay of federal money for gun research since the mid-1990s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/23/definitive-guide-which-gun-safety-policies-actually-work/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
No shit, that's the purpose of the law, to stand your ground...
The rest is all common knowledge if you own a gun or want to ban them I'd guess.
The higher rates aren’t simply from “bad guys” getting shot; the research shows the additional deaths created by stand-your-ground laws far surpass the documented cases of defensive gun use in the United States.
Common knowledge, I guess?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©