(Talking about pulling the gun stats from Mass Shooting Tracker)
"That definition of four or more shot rarely translate into four
or more killed. One-third of these 'mass shootings' result in no
fatalities and only 5% are mass killings. However, this scary one-a-day
statistic is rolled out whenever there is a large-scale mass killing,
allowing unsophisticated readers to make the wrong connection."
James Allan Fox, Prof of Criminology, Law and Public Policy
at Northwestern University.

On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:28:13 -0600, Kurt V. Ullman
wrote:

(Talking about pulling the gun stats from Mass Shooting Tracker)
"That definition of four or more shot rarely translate into four
or more killed. One-third of these 'mass shootings' result in no
fatalities and only 5% are mass killings. However, this scary one-a-day
statistic is rolled out whenever there is a large-scale mass killing,
allowing unsophisticated readers to make the wrong connection."
James Allan Fox, Prof of Criminology, Law and Public Policy
at Northwestern University.

This is from Mark Perry of The American Enterprise Institute:
http://tinyurl.com/h5m6wxj There's a chart showing the increase
of gun ownership and decline of gun related deaths in the last 20
years. The gun homicide rate has fallen almost 50% in that period.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 12/5/15 7:28 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
(Talking about pulling the gun stats from Mass Shooting Tracker)
"That definition of four or more shot rarely translate into
four or more killed. One-third of these 'mass shootings' result in no
fatalities and only 5% are mass killings. However, this scary
one-a-day statistic is rolled out whenever there is a large-scale mass
killing, allowing unsophisticated readers to make the wrong connection."
James Allan Fox, Prof of Criminology, Law and Public Policy
at Northwestern University.

ISTM just because someone failed to die from being shot (or shot at)
does not lessen the severity of mass shootings. The intent was there
on the part of the perpetrator to kill.

"Retired" wrote in message
...
On 12/5/15 7:28 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
(Talking about pulling the gun stats from Mass Shooting Tracker)
"That definition of four or more shot rarely translate into
four or more killed. One-third of these 'mass shootings' result in no
fatalities and only 5% are mass killings. However, this scary
one-a-day statistic is rolled out whenever there is a large-scale mass
killing, allowing unsophisticated readers to make the wrong connection."
James Allan Fox, Prof of Criminology, Law and Public Policy
at Northwestern University.

ISTM just because someone failed to die from being shot (or shot at) does
not lessen the severity of mass shootings. The intent was there on the
part of the perpetrator to kill.

But when a drug deal is part of the count, it is very misleading. When
someone is injured when running away from a one on one shooting, it adds to
the statistics. Very misleading. Intentionally misleading, of course.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...unt-misleading

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:13:41 -0800, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"Retired" wrote in message
...
On 12/5/15 7:28 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
(Talking about pulling the gun stats from Mass Shooting Tracker)
"That definition of four or more shot rarely translate into
four or more killed. One-third of these 'mass shootings' result in no
fatalities and only 5% are mass killings. However, this scary

I think it's important to realize this, but it's also important to
know if and how much mass shooting are increasing, whether people are
killed or not.

Life is complicated. It's similar to needing to remember that if a
carpet store is advertising n dollars a yard, but they insist on
measuring your house so that you need 1.5 times as many yards as the
other company does, you're not getting such a good deal.

one-a-day statistic is rolled out whenever there is a large-scale mass
killing, allowing unsophisticated readers to make the wrong connection."
James Allan Fox, Prof of Criminology, Law and Public Policy
at Northwestern University.

ISTM just because someone failed to die from being shot (or shot at) does
not lessen the severity of mass shootings. The intent was there on the
part of the perpetrator to kill.

Right

But when a drug deal is part of the count, it is very misleading. When

It's got to be really rare that more than 1 or 2 people are shot at a
drug deal. People don't come in crowds to drug deals. There is one
dealer and one buyer. And they dont' do it in the middle of an
unknowing crowd. But given all that, if one starts shooting and puts
a bullet in 4 or more people, the incident should be counted.

someone is injured when running away from a one on one shooting, it adds to
the statistics.

If there was a one-on-one shooting and someone is injured (do you mean
shot?) by running away, then at most 3 people have been shot. Under
4.

Very misleading. Intentionally misleading, of course.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...unt-misleading

"Micky" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:13:41 -0800, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"Retired" wrote in message
...
On 12/5/15 7:28 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
(Talking about pulling the gun stats from Mass Shooting Tracker)
"That definition of four or more shot rarely translate into
four or more killed. One-third of these 'mass shootings' result in no
fatalities and only 5% are mass killings. However, this scary

I think it's important to realize this, but it's also important to
know if and how much mass shooting are increasing, whether people are
killed or not.

Life is complicated. It's similar to needing to remember that if a
carpet store is advertising n dollars a yard, but they insist on
measuring your house so that you need 1.5 times as many yards as the
other company does, you're not getting such a good deal.

one-a-day statistic is rolled out whenever there is a large-scale mass
killing, allowing unsophisticated readers to make the wrong
connection."
James Allan Fox, Prof of Criminology, Law and Public Policy
at Northwestern University.

ISTM just because someone failed to die from being shot (or shot at)
does
not lessen the severity of mass shootings. The intent was there on the
part of the perpetrator to kill.

Right

But when a drug deal is part of the count, it is very misleading. When

It's got to be really rare that more than 1 or 2 people are shot at a
drug deal. People don't come in crowds to drug deals. There is one
dealer and one buyer. And they dont' do it in the middle of an
unknowing crowd. But given all that, if one starts shooting and puts
a bullet in 4 or more people, the incident should be counted.

why don't you read the article I provided the link to?

"And, in fact, gang-related shootings, crimes that occasion gunfire,
disputes among families and friends that turn explosive - these account for
the vast majority of "mass" gun violence in the United States. The
Congressional Research Service reports that, of the average of 21 mass
shootings (their definition) annually between 1991 and 2013, "familicides"
and shootings "attributable to an underlying criminal activity or
commonplace circumstance" were both almost twice as common as "mass public
shootings" of the sort that more commonly arrest the public eye."






someone is injured when running away from a one on one shooting, it adds
to
the statistics.

If there was a one-on-one shooting and someone is injured (do you mean
shot?) by running away, then at most 3 people have been shot. Under
4.

no, I mean injured, not shot.

"
There are obvious problems, one identified by the FBI in a 2014 report on
active-shooter situations, which couches its own statistics by noting: A
handful of those identified as "wounded" were not injured by gunfire but
rather suffered injuries incidental to the event, such as being hit by
flying objects/shattered glass or falling while running."


Very misleading. Intentionally misleading, of course.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...unt-misleading

taxed and spent wrote:
"Micky" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:13:41 -0800, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"Retired" wrote in message
...
On 12/5/15 7:28 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
(Talking about pulling the gun stats from Mass
Shooting Tracker)
"That definition of four or more shot rarely
translate into
four or more killed. One-third of these 'mass
shootings' result
in no fatalities and only 5% are mass killings.
However, this
scary

I think it's important to realize this, but it's also
important to
know if and how much mass shooting are increasing,
whether people are
killed or not.

Life is complicated. It's similar to needing to remember
that if a
carpet store is advertising n dollars a yard, but they
insist on
measuring your house so that you need 1.5 times as many
yards as the
other company does, you're not getting such a good deal.

one-a-day statistic is rolled out whenever there is a
large-scale
mass killing, allowing unsophisticated readers to make
the wrong
connection."
James Allan Fox, Prof of Criminology, Law
and Public
Policy at Northwestern University.

ISTM just because someone failed to die from being shot
(or shot
at) does
not lessen the severity of mass shootings. The intent
was there on
the part of the perpetrator to kill.

Right

But when a drug deal is part of the count, it is very
misleading. When

It's got to be really rare that more than 1 or 2 people
are shot at a
drug deal. People don't come in crowds to drug deals.
There is one
dealer and one buyer. And they dont' do it in the
middle of an
unknowing crowd. But given all that, if one starts
shooting and
puts a bullet in 4 or more people, the incident should be
counted.

why don't you read the article I provided the link to?

"And, in fact, gang-related shootings, crimes that
occasion gunfire,
disputes among families and friends that turn explosive -
these
account for the vast majority of "mass" gun violence in
the United
States. The Congressional Research Service reports that,
of the
average of 21 mass shootings (their definition) annually
between 1991
and 2013, "familicides" and shootings "attributable to an
underlying
criminal activity or commonplace circumstance" were both
almost twice
as common as "mass public shootings" of the sort that more
commonly
arrest the public eye."





someone is injured when running away from a one on one
shooting, it
adds to
the statistics.

If there was a one-on-one shooting and someone is injured
(do you
mean shot?) by running away, then at most 3 people have
been shot. Under 4.

no, I mean injured, not shot.

"
There are obvious problems, one identified by the FBI in a
2014
report on active-shooter situations, which couches its own
statistics
by noting: A handful of those identified as "wounded" were
not
injured by gunfire but rather suffered injuries incidental
to the
event, such as being hit by flying objects/shattered glass
or falling
while running."

Very misleading. Intentionally misleading, of course.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...unt-misleading

or try this story
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...un-free-zones/