CartBlanche said:
You've not even looked at the incidents have you? Just the description of how they gather data and jumped to some kind of conclusion. Every incident reported comes with a link to a related news article. How many linked articles did you actually read, before you read my previous sentence?? If you go to the news articles you can actually make an informed decision about whether the shootings involved "defensive" or "accidental" incidents. A quick sample of the first 20 shooting over the last 10 days (yes 2 per day) doesn't have 1 "defensive" or "accidental" shooting. So as a statistic that's 0% of what you suggested happened. But let's say that is too small a sample, if they do include that data, which I highly doubt, I'd be willing to bet it accounts for less that 1% of the 291 shootings listed there for this year. For those reading who don't have a calculator that is less that 3 of the 291 of them would involve "defensive" or "accidental" shootings, which means their figures are hardly inflated, as you falsely suggest. |
I've seen plenty of mass shootings statistics like that loosen the definition of mass shooting so as many shootings as possible are added in. It's just like when they tally school shootings. I didn't actually read that particular link because I got an attack warning (virus) when I first looked at it. When I look at just one of these and it turns out that it was a gang shooting or domestic homicide then I know it's being dishonest in how it's tallied and presented. Its intentional. Its premise is false.
