Fbi Report Ends Nra Nonsense About "good Guys With Guns"

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.

Really Comrade? Did YOU read the FBI report, or just the opinion of a blogger on a hate site?

{
Unlike a defined crime, such as a murder or
mass killing, the active aspect inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and
citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses.
}

Hmmm, so this is explicitly a situation where law enforcement is present and engaged?

Wouldn't that render the stats that your fellow democrat posted irrelevant?

Ah, there is a war against civil liberty to be waged - facts are the first casualty.

I get it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The FBI you mean or.....*shock* I got it! The LIBERAL FBI, am I right?

The FBI report does not say what the Khmer Rouge blogger claims.

Not even close.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ice, many years ago, I lived next door to a guy who was a cop in Denver. One night, he and his partner were called out on a prowler report. They both entered the back yard of where the prowler was spotted from both sides of the front of the house. The gun nut who owned the house saw a shadow moving in his back yard, and killed his partner dead, from inside his open sliding glass door. My neighbor came within a millisecond of blowing the homeowner to hell with his service revolver. After that, he left the force and became a prison guard. He told me that he was a lot more comfortable, because in prison, he knew that EVERBODY was a bad guy, and that he did not have to figure out who was a good guy, and who was a bad guy.

So, Ice, it is YOU who are full of shit.

LOL. Your one account against the thousands (literally) I've seen. The HO was wrong and should have been charged. My guns don't behave that way so maybe it was operator error?

Like I said, people can go check out cop forums for themselves. They are overwhelmingly pro 2nd. Most don't like the open carry guys but I'm suspicious of them as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL. Your one account against the thousands (literally) I've seen. The HO was wrong and should have been charged. My guns don't behave that way so maybe it was operator error?

Like I said, people can go check out cop forums for themselves. They are overwhelmingly pro 2nd. Most don't like the open carry guys but I'm suspicious of them as well.

The whole thread and blog is utterly meaningless. The Khmer Rouge blogger selected a report that included only "active shooters." This means engaged in a shootout with cops. This is just the Khmer Rouge being dishonest, as always,.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.

Really Comrade? Did YOU read the FBI report, or just the opinion of a blogger on a hate site?

{
Unlike a defined crime, such as a murder or
mass killing, the active aspect inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and
citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses.
}

Hmmm, so this is explicitly a situation where law enforcement is present and engaged?

Wouldn't that render the stats that your fellow democrat posted irrelevant?

Ah, there is a war against civil liberty to be waged - facts are the first casualty.

I get it.

So you just looked for the first thing that you could nitpick by taking it out of context.

Why not post the entire context?

The sentence that you pulled out of context now makes you look foolish since it is not as you implied.

Great job on "shooting yourself in the foot" figuratively speaking.

 

[Erand7899]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.

So it fits the narrative,not once on the Huff post piece were there any word for word quotes connected to said FBI studies,the word suggest this and leads possible for that,just means its an opinion piece nothing more nothing less.

If you want to verify the veracity of the OP go and read the FBI report for yourself. Nothing that I read in the OP was inaccurate per the FBI report.

A report does not have to be inaccurate to be misleading, or to be used to mislead. The following is an excellent example.

Decades ago, when I was in the US Navy, we had our annual squadron picnic, and as often happens, we had a softball game between the Officers, and the Chief Petty Officers. The Chiefs won the game.

The next day, in the Plan of the Day, the following news item was included. "Yesterday, the Officers vs Chiefs softball game was held, and the Chiefs won. Thus, the season ended with the Chiefs managing their only win, while the officers suffered their only loss."

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you just looked for the first thing that you could nitpick by taking it out of context.

Why not post the entire context?

Same reason you had to do a screen shot, it was blowing up the cut & paste

The sentence that you pulled out of context now makes you look foolish since it is not as you implied.

Great job on "shooting yourself in the foot" figuratively speaking.

It is explicit - "active shooting" is one in which LEO are actively engaged.

You of the Khmer Rouge lied in order to further your war on civil rights. You got caught.

{
This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings, but rather a study of a specific type of
shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face. Incidents identified in this study
do not encompass all gun-related situations; therefore caution should be taken when using
this information without placing it in context. Specifically, shootings that resulted from gang
or drug violence—pervasive, long-tracked, criminal acts that could also affect the public—
were not included in this study. In addition, other gun-related shootings were not included
when those incidents appeared generally not to have put others in peril (e.g., the accidental
discharge of a firearm in a school building or a person who chose to publicly commit suicide
in a parking lot). The study does not encompass all mass killings or shootings in public
places and therefore is limited in its scope.6
Nonetheless, it was undertaken to provide clarity
and data of value to both law enforcement and citizens as they seek to stop these threats and
save lives during active shooter incidents.7}

 

[Uncensored2008]

A report does not have to be inaccurate to be misleading, or to be used to mislead. The following is an excellent example.

Decades ago, when I was in the US Navy, we had our annual squadron picnic, and as often happens, we had a softball game between the Officers, and the Chief Petty Officers. The Chiefs won the game.

The next day, in the Plan of the Day, the following news item was included. "Yesterday, the Officers vs Chiefs softball game was held, and the Chiefs won. Thus, the season ended with the Chiefs managing their only win, while the officers suffered their only loss."

The report is neither inaccurate nor misleading - it simply does not say what the Khmer Rouge claims it says. It is a study of a particular type of situation. The Khmer Rouge blogger dishonestly extended this to general situations, despite the FBI explicitly defining what they were reporting on.

The report itself has no meaning in regard to the efficacy of armed civilians as a deterrent to crime. This is just leftists being dishonest.

 

[Kondor3]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

The answer is obvious.

It wasn't the FBI, it was the gun-grabbers here cherry-picking one particular Federal sampling-study, in a transparent attempt to score a few agenda-points.

One can question the sampling base, and one can also question why it was not framed in the context of the total number of gun-owners, not just those involved in incidents.

It entirely disregards the huge, overwhelming numbers of gun-owners who are not involved in any kind of incident eligible for such study.

At a bare-bones minimum, it needed to take the overall ownership population into account in some manner, and, unless I missed something, it did not.

So you didn't bother to read the FBI report either but you felt qualified to make a vacuous comment instead.

Correct, I didn't read the report.

I'm just not that interested in the details.

Incorrect, the observations made were not vacuous but based upon other commentary seen here, prior to posting.

What about those observations was incorrect?

1. that the report is merely one amongst many Federal -level studies on the subject?

2. that the sampling base (a mere 160 incidents) could not be questioned?

3. that the lack of a society-wide context for the study could not be questioned?

4. did the report not ignore the huge numbers of gun owners who were not involved in such incidents?

...or was it just...

5. my observation that gun-grabbers cherry-picked this one narrow Federal study out of a much broader menu of studies to choose from, as an agenda driving tactic?

If you actually read the report you will realize that you are coming across as a kneejerk deflector.

The FBI report deals with a very serious problem that is is only getting worse, not better.

If you ignore these findings you are going to end up being marginalized in the future.

Better to be informed about the problem that to pretend that it isn't happening.

Your lack of specific refutations seems to indicate that my observations were not inaccurate after all.

Barring any indicators to the contrary, I'll settle for that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thread is gay...........

74% of Americans oppose any kind of gun ban. ( see Gallup poll 2014......IM too tired to find it )

gun grabber losing.........

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way...........is it not the height of gay to put somebody on a public forum on an ignore list?

That is the response by ALL of the social oddballs.

 

[MisterBeale]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.

So it fits the narrative,not once on the Huff post piece were there any word for word quotes connected to said FBI studies,the word suggest this and leads possible for that,just means its an opinion piece nothing more nothing less.

If you want to verify the veracity of the OP go and read the FBI report for yourself. Nothing that I read in the OP was inaccurate per the FBI report.

I skimmed it. What it clearly indicated to me, and which I have suspected all along is, well, one of two things.

Either a rapidly dissolving culture where more and more people are being put on psychotropic medications and the MSM doesn't want to confront the issue, because, well, hey, if you watch the evening news, most of their advertising dollar comes from big pharma.

Or. . . Conspiracy. I highly recommend that folks do some serious research into the LAX shooting and that whole Sandy Hook thing. I don't have a clue what happened, but I am reasonably sure they are covering something up.

What is clear from this report, is that something is going on, and there is NO LOGICAL explanation.

Believe this folks. There WILL BE more and more of these mass shooting until your guns are taken away.

If you don't know anything about how they control the minds of individual people, find out. If you don't know "they," meaning clandestine agencies can make a person do something like this, perhaps you may want to find out.

Who would want to make fire arms illegal in the US? They are called globalists. Representatives from every nation on earth have met at the UN to make policy that would make it illegal for nations to buy and sell fire arms. First you need to have a nations citizens surrender their perceived right and need to have them. Next you need to make owning them more of a danger than not having them.

As soon as Australians gave them up? This trend of "Active Shooter Incidents" mysteriously went away, only to be replaced with a corresponding rise in crime.

It's our choice. Are we really going to believe that this rise in "Active Shooter Incidents" has anything to do with guns? We have always had guns. Why should we believe it has anything to do with guns? Shouldn't we questions what is going on? Isn't there some other agenda here? WHY ARE THESE INCIDENTS INCREASING? WHAT HAS CHANGED?

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH GUNS!​

 

[2aguy]

An nra survey says 34 percent of defenses ends with a dead criminal.

Do you have an actual link to this survey...I would like to see how they word it...?

 

[2aguy]

Believe this folks. There WILL BE more and more of these mass shooting until your guns are taken away.

Actually, there hasn't been an increase in mass public shootings...

 

[MisterBeale]

Believe this folks. There WILL BE more and more of these mass shooting until your guns are taken away.

Actually, there hasn't been an increase in mass public shootings...

I quoted the FBI report, where is your proof?

 

[2aguy]

As to the rise in mass shootings...not happening...they are at the same level as always...

CNN No really mass shootings are not on the rise Hot Air

Jake Tapper interviewed Northeastern University criminology professor James Alan Fox to look at the data rather than the anecdotes. Over a 40-year period, Fox concluded, mass shootings have remained flat — even while the population of the country has grown significantly over the same period:

 

[M14 Shooter]

New FBI Report Casts Doubt on NRA s Good Guy Stops Bad Guy Nonsense Mike Weisser

"I'm referring to a report on active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013.
(snip)

Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun."

The police do not qualify as good guy with guns?

160 active shootings in 13 years = 12.3 per year.
486 deaths in 13 years = 37 per year.

Clearly, we need to ban 'assault weapons'.

 

[Brain357]

Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters With Data Tables

An nra survey says 34 percent of defenses ends with a dead criminal.

Do you have an actual link to this survey...I would like to see how they word it...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Americans have the right to possess and carry firearms for lawful self-defense

.... amog other things...

because the Constitution protects the right of Americans to possess and carry firearms for lawful self-defense..

...among other things.
Why do you always leave out those other things?

 

[MisterBeale]

As to the rise in mass shootings...not happening...they are at the same level as always...

CNN No really mass shootings are not on the rise Hot Air

Jake Tapper interviewed Northeastern University criminology professor James Alan Fox to look at the data rather than the anecdotes. Over a 40-year period, Fox concluded, mass shootings have remained flat — even while the population of the country has grown significantly over the same period:

Well, I stand corrected. Or at least slightly so.

I noticed from the FBI report, it's use of what it considered a "statistically significant" shooting was rather different than what this professor used as a meaningful data point. For this Professor, a drunk killing his family was a meaningful data point. So. . . having a meaningful conversation at this point is sort of hopeless without a common definition of what our data points are going to be.