Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexical
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexical
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.
|
Weak sauce. Don't make me go digging for US statistics for firearm killings that included at least 2 killed and 5 injured. Just from 2006-2010 alone, USA TODAY identified 156 murders that met the FBI definitions of mass killings, where four or more people were killed. All told, the attacks killed 774 people, including at least 161 young children. I'd hate to see what less restrictive rules on what constitutes a mass killing does for our figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexical
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?
|
It's what you accused
me of earlier. An inherently flawed what-if argument.
01-13-2013, 02:23 AM
Threaded Mode