because by definition, spree shootings arent mass shootings. the FBI defines a mass shooting as someone in one setting killing 4 or more people

Spree, mass, doesn't matter the list is still bogus. Check the numbers for youself. The only way to get to Lott's list is to heavily massage the data, as in making a random distinction between mass shootings and spree shootings, excluding domestic setting, excluding shootings in public that were outside an establishment and all sorts of other tomfoolery. Lott has an agenda and his list is doctored to fit that agenda. Listening to him on gun control is like getting your Nintendo news from Seece.

It already exists and is huge.  The argument is NOT to take guns out of the hands of people in the criminal world, it's to minimize shootings like Sandy Hook.

listing an expert on crime data, is like seece and nintendo?

no, using an expert and his research proves my point. His agenda is to reveal the truth about crime. And it is a fact that nearly every mass shooting takes place in a so called gun free zone. and no it doesnt exclude public places, as why the gabby giffords shooting is counted as a non gun free zone. 

fact is more often than not, whether intentionally or not criminals choose easy targets

There's a huge problem with your argument.  It has to do with the fact that you're vaguely referring to "gun free zones" and comparing that to gun control, when it really isn't the same thing and EVEN IF you were to do that, how can you possibly calculate all the times it DID help?  How do you count how many times something DIDN'T happen?  It didn't happen, so there's no way to know.  I am aware the argument CAN go both ways in that since you can't calculate it, it also means we wont know if it's really changing much at all unless we get rid of gun control completely.  However, that doesn't change the fact that no one really knows the "facts" of these things.  Taking statistics from another country also wouldn't help as different places react differently to different laws.

I would just have to point out that most of the cities with strict gun laws, like DC and Chicago, have some of the worst gun crime statistics.

If by delusional you mean examining studies from almost any country that has actually taken steps to reduce gun availability and reaped the benefits of substantially lowered gun crime then, yes.

We're all delusional.

I honestly think the poll-options should be sufficient to get this thread locked...

You only need about 25 bucks and know someone who does drugs to get a handgun.

Actually less then 25 bucks if you don't care if the gun has a crime on it already.

Which if you are going to shoot up a school....

Unless you ask the people most involved in stopping crimes. As done in the above OP.

They, DON'T think it's a resonabe thing to assume, and assume the opposite.