| Kasz216 said: Additionally, Lott's research isn't really wrong or weird. It just defines mass shootings slightly differently then the FBI's way of doing it to make it more scientifically useful.
It's not really done in a weird way. So much as in the way of somebody who would run an expierment to see something would phrase things. |
But the navy Yard doesn't fit that description at all. You can't just discount the armed guards there, so you can't say "oh he picked that place because he knew to expect less resistance, because in fact he was in a shoot out with armed guards before police arrived. You can say that he wouldn't expect to see random civilians with weapons, but you can't say that he'd be less likely to come across someone with a gun because that's exactly what armed guards are.
And no, you can't say that it's the same as a school because the police don't have checkpoints throughtout a school with weapons ready. If you had a school that had as many armed guards as the Navy Yard then yes I think it would be disingenuous to call such a place a "gun free zone". It's an "armed civilian" free zone but it is certainly not a gun free zone.
...









