Posted on 11/24/2018 3:13:16 PM PST by richardb72
It looks more like a school research paper.
Not really news, but not a blog pimp.
Don’t care either way.
Interesting graph in the download. The U.S. rate is equal to the rate in Western Europe which has mores restrictive gun laws. In the places where the rate is higher, it is a lot higher (S.America, Africa).
But attacks on the Ruling Globalist Elites are DOWN where the population is disarmed!!!!
Israel is in a class all its own, because the shooters tend not to live very long, since there are enough armed citizens to stop them.
I think you are in the wrong church and wrong pew.
Lots of trolls hereabouts.
The article demonstrates how absurd gun coontrol really is.
Got a problem with that?
One problem I see with the analysis is that it does not include countries that did not have mass public shootings during the period studied.
It’s informative. It’s useful. End of story. Thanks.
Talk about an Inconvenient Truth...
Non-reporting is common in much of the world.
Interesting the Germans take mental illness seriously - what with their recent history.
Have no clue what German culture is like today, but they have a tendency to be.....regimnted and....socialist.
Perhaps the Germans are serious about keeping weapons from udesireables.But in reviewing gun control agendas in places like Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc., its quite clear the Democrat and RINO gun control agendas are all TOTALLY about banning firearms altogether. Aside from their connections with white western Europeans and “toxic masculinity”, thry clearly view them as a dangerous impediment to a national refutation of enlightment political theory, basic human rights, constitutional government - all those things contemporary Europeans never quite understood from the French Revolution on.
Lott is a major gun researcher, an honest one. Your aim gets worse every year. And you are boring.
Uhh, like Cuba and Venezuela? Mass shooting there are limited to official government actions.
No...I was referring to HG’s standard attack on anyone posting, what he deems, as unworthy material; better known as blogs.
I was not referring to the content, which I found interesting.
Why the attacks? I was defending the article. Jeez.
O,k, I see. Sorry.
What’s the difference between a “mass public shooting” and a plain “mass shooting?”
Enormous differences.
Mass public shooting used to mean a rampage shooting of unrelated people in a public setting, where four or more people, not the shooter, were killed.
This was to differentiate rampage shootings, which the public was concerned about, and which was given enormous publicity, from ordinary gang shooting drive bys and domestic shootings/killings.
Those who wish us disarmed, changed the definition to expand to "mass shootings", which they defined as any shooting in which four people were injured, whether they were injured by gun fire, fleeing the scene, or being hit by a car, as I recall. This inflated the number of "mass public shootings" in the public mind. The difference in the numbers is about a hundred to one, as I recall.
Lott, in this research, uses the first definition which was used by the FBI for years.
The difference is one of propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.