Percentage of Shootings on Gun-Free Zones vs Gun Zones

[Arctic55]

http://i.imgur.com/NkHysay.png

 

Just gonna drop this here.

[IQuitDolphin]

One of the biggest issues with gun control is that it doesn't stop gun OWNERSHIP, which is already established and hard to break. Sure, you might not know someone with a gun, but there are a LOT of people with guns, and a lot of them are normal people that can easily be swayed by s*** like ISIS etc.

[Flame Dragon]

So what your saying is that because criminals won't follow the law we should just have no laws at all.

 

Also, this seems to insinuate that if someone had a gun during any of the mass shooting they would have made a difference. This is ridiculous notion and very removed from reality. Yes, it CAN happen. The VAST majority of the time, it won't.

[IQuitDolphin]

We're saying that the laws we are establishing won't make a difference to begin with and will simply be ploys to increase government power over another aspect of our lives.

 

Having gun-free zones will remove a large source of fear for many would-be criminals. Those who are afraid of dying before accomplishing their task will no longer be worried of being shot because nobody has a gun to shoot them with in the first place. There is a reason criminals target gun-free zones than zones with guns: They aren't idiots, they will choose the area of least resistance, and if the majority of zones are now gun-free it means that nobody can really stop them aside from police or the rare person that goes head-first and tackles the person (highly unlikely).

[Flame Dragon]

We're saying that the laws we are establishing won't make a difference to begin with and will simply be ploys to increase government power over another aspect of our lives.

 

Having gun-free zones will remove a large source of fear for many would-be criminals. Those who are afraid of dying before accomplishing their task will no longer be worried of being shot because nobody has a gun to shoot them with in the first place. There is a reason criminals target gun-free zones than zones with guns: They aren't idiots, they will choose the area of least resistance, and if the majority of zones are now gun-free it means that nobody can really stop them aside from police or the rare person that goes head-first and tackles the person (highly unlikely).

This very logic applies for removing laws completely. They won't stop people from breaking them, so why even bother.

 

Again, if you think someone with a gun is going to make a signifiant difference in these kinds of attacks you are living in a fantasy.

[Yuuji Kazami]

A few questions, is it actually possible to get an exact number (or otherwise an accurate approximate number) for those graphs of yours as opposed to having only percentages? Also, can you please point out the area(s) for which this data is gathered, and in which country? I'd assume America, but the picture you posted doesn't specify, and I am unable to visit that website by being in a different country. 

 

Considering that Canada does allow gun ownership for some individuals, the country overall is generally against firearms in public. I'd only like more evidence regarding this issue so I can give an accurate point based only on the facts and the information given.

 

A LOT of holes are in those graphs, just saying.

[VCR_CAT]

http://i.imgur.com/NkHysay.png

 

Just gonna drop this here.

 

Information that's needed but not provided by the picture:

- What's defined as a "gun free zone"

- What's defined as a zone where guns are allowed

- Do said zones have equal amounts of traffic/are they considered equally viable targets for said mass shootings

- Correlation vs. Causation; is it just a coincidence that these places are where the shootings are taking place

- What nation(s) these statistics are pulled from

- Is this in comparison to nations that have gun control laws or is this strictly for only the United States

- What's the source of these studies? Is that simple bar graphic at the top credible?

 

I mean, overall, I can't really glean any info from these charts without any further understanding, especially regarding those particular pieces of information. If we're talking purely within the united states, then this isn't a proper comparison from having-guns-to-not-having-guns simply because if a gun-free-zone is just referring to a public space where it's not legal to carry weapons (such as a school), then this isn't a comparison between nations that have guns and those that don't; it's a comparison between areas that allow the carrying of weapons vs. those that don't all within a nation whose laws allow for the easy purchasing and ownership of weapons.

 

Now, if these were charts comparing homicides per capita (particularly with guns, but overall would be interesting to look at to) between two nations of relatively similar cultures and nature with the only notable difference being gun laws, then we're getting somewhere. But for now, these charts could mean a lot of things, many of which don't actually make a good case against gun control.

[Arctic55]

A few questions, is it actually possible to get an exact number (or otherwise an accurate approximate number) for those graphs of yours as opposed to having only percentages? Also, can you please point out the area(s) for which this data is gathered, and in which country? I'd assume America, but the picture you posted doesn't specify, and I am unable to visit that website by being in a different country. 

 

Considering that Canada does allow gun ownership for some individuals, the country overall is generally against firearms in public. I'd only like more evidence regarding this issue so I can give an accurate point based only on the facts and the information given.

 

A LOT of holes are in those graphs, just saying.

Taken from their website, and I quote:

"The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives that are organized and operated for similar purposes. It has 501©(3) status, and does not accept donations from gun or ammunition makers or organizations such as the NRA or any other organizations involved in the gun control debate on either side of the issue.

Our goal is to provide an objective and accurate scientific evaluation of both the costs and benefits of gun ownership as well as policing activities."

 

also "CPRC is a Colorado non-profit corporation.  CPRC has 501©(3) status with the IRS.  In keeping with 501©3 status, CPRC will focus on research and education."

 

Information that's needed but not provided by the picture:

- What's defined as a "gun free zone"

- What's defined as a zone where guns are allowed

- Do said zones have equal amounts of traffic/are they considered equally viable targets for said mass shootings

- Correlation vs. Causation; is it just a coincidence that these places are where the shootings are taking place

- What nation(s) these statistics are pulled from

- Is this in comparison to nations that have gun control laws or is this strictly for only the United States

- What's the source of these studies? Is that simple bar graphic at the top credible?

 

I mean, overall, I can't really glean any info from these charts without any further understanding, especially regarding those particular pieces of information. If we're talking purely within the united states, then this isn't a proper comparison from having-guns-to-not-having-guns simply because if a gun-free-zone is just referring to a public space where it's not legal to carry weapons (such as a school), then this isn't a comparison between nations that have guns and those that don't; it's a comparison between areas that allow the carrying of weapons vs. those that don't all within a nation whose laws allow for the easy purchasing and ownership of weapons.

 

Now, if these were charts comparing homicides per capita (particularly with guns, but overall would be interesting to look at to) between two nations of relatively similar cultures and nature with the only notable difference being gun laws, then we're getting somewhere. But for now, these charts could mean a lot of things, many of which don't actually make a good case against gun control.

I didn't make the graph and I was not part of the research.  Take it up with with the CPRC.  Also, here is a link to the page the charts are from: http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

[Yuuji Kazami]

Taken from their website, and I quote:

"The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives that are organized and operated for similar purposes. It has 501©(3) status, and does not accept donations from gun or ammunition makers or organizations such as the NRA or any other organizations involved in the gun control debate on either side of the issue.

Our goal is to provide an objective and accurate scientific evaluation of both the costs and benefits of gun ownership as well as policing activities."

 

also "CPRC is a Colorado non-profit corporation.  CPRC has 501©(3) status with the IRS.  In keeping with 501©3 status, CPRC will focus on research and education."

 

I didn't make the graph and I was not part of the research.  Take it up with with the CPRC.  Also, here is a link to the page the charts are from: http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Um... Can I ask which question did it answer from what I asked? =l

[VCR_CAT]

I didn't make the graph and I was not part of the research.  Take it up with with the CPRC.  Also, here is a link to the page the charts are from: http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

 

I'm not going to scan through the article to glean information you should have gotten yourself in the first place. you clearly haven't done the proper research before posting what is honestly a very questionable series of graphs in terms of credibility, and have made no real arguments or statements regarding them. The information that can be gotten just by looking at the graphs alone means almost nothing without any of the clarifications I asked for in my own post. This entire topic is as good as spam.

[Brinolovania]

Taken from their website, and I quote:

"The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives that are organized and operated for similar purposes. It has 501©(3) status, and does not accept donations from gun or ammunition makers or organizations such as the NRA or any other organizations involved in the gun control debate on either side of the issue.

Our goal is to provide an objective and accurate scientific evaluation of both the costs and benefits of gun ownership as well as policing activities."

 

also "CPRC is a Colorado non-profit corporation.  CPRC has 501©(3) status with the IRS.  In keeping with 501©3 status, CPRC will focus on research and education."

 

I didn't make the graph and I was not part of the research.  Take it up with with the CPRC.  Also, here is a link to the page the charts are from: http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

The first paragraph doesn't address the criticism at all, and from what I can tell from my incomplete reading, the page itself isn't much better. The point was that the graphs you showed don't have the context needed to draw a good conclusion. The site's schpiel about itself does nothing to provide more context. All it does is show that the site claims it's unbiased, which it's obviously going to do and tells us nothing about whether or not it actually is. The article is basically a continuation of the context-less main point, and seems to be filled technicalities meant to manipulate the statistics on shootings. Again, there's just not enough here to make anything of. Statistics are useless in a void.

 

Also, from a little bit of Googling, it seems to be questionable whether the CPRC is actually unbiased, so there's that too.

[Arctic55]

Um... Can I ask which question did it answer from what I asked? =l

My response says "Do the research yourself to find CPRC's research" ('cause all I did was drop the graphs in the forums, not declare my own reasoning) and my response also says the graphs are on America.

 

Note: If you read the article I linked lower in the response to VCR_CAT, the article says (basically) that CPRC says the graphs cannot be exact due to lack of detailed documentation by law enforcement, but that the graphs are approximately as accurate as they can tell, after doing research on every mass shooting case.

 

I'm not going to scan through the article to glean information you should have gotten yourself in the first place. you clearly haven't done the proper research before posting what is honestly a very questionable series of graphs in terms of credibility, and have made no real arguments or statements regarding them. The information that can be gotten just by looking at the graphs alone means almost nothing without any of the clarifications I asked for in my own post. This entire topic is as good as spam.

Like I said to Yuuji Kazami, I was not really making an argument or statement. All I did was drop a graph onto the forum. The title was to warn people of what they might see rather than make a statement.

 

My response says "Do the research yourself to find CPRC's research" ('cause all I did was drop the graphs in the forums, not declare my own reasoning) and my response also says the graphs are on America.

 

Note: If you read the article I linked lower in the response to VCR_CAT, the article says (basically) that CPRC says the graphs cannot be exact due to lack of detailed documentation by law enforcement, but that the graphs are approximately as accurate as they can tell, after doing research on every mass shooting case.

 

Like I said to Yuuji Kazami, I was not really making an argument or statement. All I did was drop a graph onto the forum. The title was to warn people of what they might see rather than make a statement.

Like I said to VCR_CAT, take it up with CPRC about their research. All I did was drop some graphs to see what you guys thought.

[Yuuji Kazami]

A few questions, is it actually possible to get an exact number (or otherwise an accurate approximate number) for those graphs of yours as opposed to having only percentages? Also, can you please point out the area(s) for which this data is gathered, and in which country? I'd assume America, but the picture you posted doesn't specify, and I am unable to visit that website by being in a different country. 

 

Considering that Canada does allow gun ownership for some individuals, the country overall is generally against firearms in public. I'd only like more evidence regarding this issue so I can give an accurate point based only on the facts and the information given.

 

A LOT of holes are in those graphs, just saying.

RIP reading skills on this website imo. If I can't even access the website, how the hell can you expect me to research to find CPRC's research? Which response of yours said that the graphs were based only in America, minus your last post?

 

Not only that, the topic title literally says "Another Reason Why We Should NOT Ban Guns". It's not unreasonable for others to assume that you would be in favour of not banning guns just from the topic title.

 

If you wanted to only hear the thoughts of others, having a different title in the name or something would've been more helpful. Otherwise, you could've posted a message stating that so that others wouldn't get the wrong idea. Posting 'just going to drop this here" is not helping your case, as it's very likely to cause misinterpretations. 

[IQuitDolphin]

My response says "Do the research yourself to find CPRC's research" ('cause all I did was drop the graphs in the forums, not declare my own reasoning) and my response also says the graphs are on America.

 

Note: If you read the article I linked lower in the response to VCR_CAT, the article says (basically) that CPRC says the graphs cannot be exact due to lack of detailed documentation by law enforcement, but that the graphs are approximately as accurate as they can tell, after doing research on every mass shooting case.

 

Like I said to Yuuji Kazami, I was not really making an argument or statement. All I did was drop a graph onto the forum. The title was to warn people of what they might see rather than make a statement.

 

Like I said to VCR_CAT, take it up with CPRC about their research. All I did was drop some graphs to see what you guys thought.

 

Cool, so you acknowledge your post as having no intellectual explanation for discussion nor did you take into account the responsibility of posting about a heavy topic in arguably one of the most regulated forums on YCM. Not only that, you add a trigger warning for a topic that is hardly disturbing. Take your shitposting to misc. please.

 

You do NOT drop graphs without your own analysis, NOR do you redirect people's questions to outside sources without learning about the subject itself. Debates are meant to raise discussion centered around a singular point decided by the OP, not "oh look at this cute graph now talk about whatever".

 

----

 

There is little discussion here aside from the fact that the graph does nothing to improve the arguments for pro-gun advocates for the reason that it is too vague and purposely does not include important factors for the sake of simplicity.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So what your saying is that because criminals won't follow the law we should just have no laws at all.Also, this seems to insinuate that if someone had a gun during any of the mass shooting they would have made a difference. This is ridiculous notion and very removed from reality. Yes, it CAN happen. The VAST majority of the time, it won't.

Has happened too. It won't happen often cause shooting a gun isn't easy. And most gun owners are incompetent. Shocker. Hitting 1-2 moving targets that upon making eye contact with you means you're dead (which is reality if you're trying to take down an insurgent gunman) is funking difficult. Also you can't hit friendlies.

 

Like I hate to trivialize this by comparing it to cod, but imagine that's what it is, except you don't have the luxury of range, civilian minority, respawing (lol), room, or perfect aim.

 

If more people were trained (like we're required to do for cars) then maybe armed citizens can do their job as a militia. Until then it won't happen

[Arctic55]

RIP reading skills on this website imo. If I can't even access the website, how the hell can you expect me to research to find CPRC's research? Which response of yours said that the graphs were basedonly in America, minus your last post?

 

Not only that, the topic title literally says "Another Reason Why We Should NOT Ban Guns". It's not unreasonable for others to assume that you would be in favour of not banning guns just from the topic title.

 

If you wanted to only hear the thoughts of others, having a different title in the name or something would've been more helpful. Otherwise, you could've posted a message stating that so that others wouldn't get the wrong idea. Posting 'just going to drop this here" is not helping your case, as it's very likely to cause misinterpretations. 

1. I'm sorry you can't access the site.  Maybe an American VPN would help?

2. When I quoted that the CPRC was from Colorado, that was supposed to imply that I thought they were only America (though I can't find anywhere on their website which countries they are servicing, their site implies they operate only in America).

3. Topic Title fixed to reflect what I meant appropriately.

4. I do want to here opposing opinions.  I just wanna watch the argument after giving a topic/data rather than be part of it.

 

I think that addresses your whole comment.

 

Note: I can read.

 

Edit: @VCR_CAT (comment #17) and @TheTrueDolphin (comment #14) - Title has been fixed to better reflect my goal of the topic.  Read what I said above in this comment to Yuuji.  Basically, I was not trying to give an opinion or statement, rather I was giving some data I found, the source (in comment #8) and wanted to hear your opinions.  Also, specifically @TheTrueDolphin (comment #14) - this has created some discussion as shone in comments #1-5 and #15.

[VCR_CAT]

 Like I said to Yuuji Kazami, I was not really making an argument or statement. All I did was drop a graph onto the forum. The title was to warn people of what they might see rather than make a statement.

 

The title implies you had a point to make, yet all you've done is put down a graph with questionable information and zero context without any willingness to do the proper research yourself. There's no discussion, no real "debate", meaning you've more or less put this in the wrong section if it's not spam already. The title itself does nothing to imply a warning of its content; it's a clickbait title that implies "This is the argument I'm making, so get ready for what backs it up", yet you've done nothing of the sort.

 

For future reference, if you're actually going to post in this section, please be willing to do the actual research and take the time to come up with a proper stance; don't just snag any old graph off of Imgur that probably agrees with your own opinions (assuming so; based on the topic of the thread) and throw it down with little to no context expecting proper discussion. Take the time, and put in the work; otherwise, this may as well just be spam.

[Dad]

Taking into consideration some of the points in this thread, I'm considering a rule update regarding topic titles and OPs.  The post is confusing, provides poor information, cites a single, limited source, and provides less of a debate and more of a shitfest.  I'm going to update the title but I'll be watching this thread carefully.

 

Also, a good guy with a gun does not make him a hero.  We've seen some of them act.  It's great.  But one good guy with a gun will not stop a trained group of mercs or some bastards with heavier fire power every time.  That's a fallacy.

 

EDIT:  I guess the topic title change is fine for now, but you're definitely going to need to better contribute to the OP next time, Arctic.

[Yuuji Kazami]

Has happened too. It won't happen often cause shooting a gun isn't easy. And most gun owners are incompetent. Shocker. Hitting 1-2 moving targets that upon making eye contact with you means you're dead (which is reality if you're trying to take down an insurgent gunman)

 

Like I hate to trivialize this by comparing it to cod, but imagine that's what it is, except you don't have the luxury of range or perfect aim.

 

If more people were trained (like we're required to do for cars) then maybe armed citizens can do their job as a militia. Until then it won't happen

Winter help me I think I've caught encephalitis from my first try in general, as well as metastasized leukemia. Why did you advertise imo? </3

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Winter help me I think I've caught encephalitis from my first try in general, as well as metastasized leukemia. Why did you advertise imo? 3

I didn't say it'd be easy. Lol you haven't even met vla1ne, Flame or Mido yet

[IQuitDolphin]

Training people usually involves them hitting a still target in a calm environment with headphones on. This will NEVER be the case in a real-life scenario. You got a good guy with a gun, they will most likely run. The chance that a mass shooter is going to take the chance compared to going to a gun-free school? Difference is very noticeable.

[Yuuji Kazami]

I didn't say it'd be easy. Lol you haven't even met vla1ne, Flame or Mido yet

Met vla1ne, always respected the guy. It would be fun if I had to debate him on an opposite side imo, because I'd actually have to go all out. =3

 

Don't know the rest, no offense to those guys.

 

It's just that this thread was completely cancerous in a multitude of areas. Tearing apart an argument is usually easy if it's flawed, but Arctic gave me a complete headache with his ”assumptions”. It no longer became an argument when he started to correct himself.

 

So if an organization operates in Colorado, it automatically means that their entire data would be based only in America. Brilliant imo. 11/10. Nobel Peace Prize Nomination. Might as well as give him an Oscar award too.

[Arctic55]

It's just that this thread was completely cancerous in a multitude of areas. Tearing apart an argument is usually easy if it's flawed, but Arctic gave me a complete headache with his ”assumptions”. It no longer became an argument when he started to correct himself.

 

So if an organization operates in Colorado, it automatically means that their entire data would be based only in America. Brilliant imo. 11/10. Nobel Peace Prize Nomination. Might as well as give him an Oscar award too.

Well, I was attempting to try out a new style of posting, like an off hands approach.  But apparently, that doesn't work.  Good to know.  Also, the CPRC website implies they are based and operate in America, but never says for sure (as far as I can tell).

 

Anyways, as this posting experiment was a complete failure, I'm gonna ask if a mod can lock it.