Mass Shootings and Data-Free Zones

[RevolverRob]

I don't think the argument should be phrased as "more gun availability would reduce incidents or negative outcomes of 'mass shootings.'"

For me, there is an argument from the first person -- "I have the right to have the tools available to protect me and mine" -- that is enhanced by the existence of these sort of incidents, and that argument is independent of whether less firearm availability would reduce the number or negative outcomes of incidents.

I am completely in agreement with you. Personal defense is a fundamental right. More than ever we need to utilize that point as the key to any pro-gun narrative. The rhetoric is at an all time high and none of it is productive, in my opinion. For me, data may not tell the whole truth, but they tell more of the truth than the NRA or the Brady Campaign. If we can point to solid evidence, we can escape a vicious rhetorical feedback loop. Of course the caveat is that such approaches will still be heavily politicized. I am not so naive to think that data will render zealots on either side silent. However, good data could help sell reasonable middle-grounders to one side or the other. They are as tired of the rhetorical arguments as anyone.

Besides, why conjecture about these things, when we can investigate them?

-Rob

[JAD]

I think a lot of postings on this forum tend to be a little nihilistic* -- 'the cletii will ruin everything for us,' 'we will lose our rights because the public is irrevocably stupid,' usw. I therefore am very hesitant to give this response, but I really do think that good data never matters in public discourse. Our society is ruled by emotion, and we have only been able to make so many advances in the past twenty years because the NRA's fearmongering is more effective than Brady's. While your approach seems noble, if you're trying to provide a course correction I think you need to do a better job of making the case that the way we're doing it isn't working.

*we believe in nussink, Lebowski.

[RevolverRob]

I think a lot of postings on this forum tend to be a little nihilistic* -- 'the cletii will ruin everything for us,' 'we will lose our rights because the public is irrevocably stupid,' usw. I therefore am very hesitant to give this response, but I really do think that good data never matters in public discourse. Our society is ruled by emotion, and we have only been able to make so many advances in the past twenty years because the NRA's fearmongering is more effective than Brady's. While your approach seems noble, if you're trying to provide a course correction I think you need to do a better job of making the case that the way we're doing it isn't working.

*we believe in nussink, Lebowski.

We have fundamentally different views. I don't believe rhetoric or emotion should rule, but cold hard logic should. Yes, I recognize that emotion rules the American political rhetoric. But it doesn't rule a whole group of middle-grounders who actually prefer data. I'm serious, here I work with middle-grounders every day and they would really like data in place of lobbyist rhetoric. And I'm not doing this particularly to change the rhetoric of either side. As I said, I don't think it will make a difference to the yellers of the crowd. Instead I am doing it, because hypothesis-driven investigation is superior to anecdotal spit balling, period. If those data provide a place for the conversation to change, so be it.

Everyone should recognize that while I am a gun owner and pro-2A - I am working to be unbiased in this investigation. The results will speak for themselves.

-Rob

[Alpha Sierra]

I don't think the argument should be phrased as "more gun availability would reduce incidents or negative outcomes of 'mass shootings.'"

For me, there is an argument from the first person -- "I have the right to have the tools available to protect me and mine" -- that is enhanced by the existence of these sort of incidents, and that argument is independent of whether less firearm availability would reduce the number or negative outcomes of incidents.

[/thread]

I don't give a rat's behind about anyone's statistics when it's my life on the line. Period. Full stop.

[JAD]

[/thread]
.

I hope not, or that's not what I intended.

[Drang]

...It's important to note that if we combine classic "gun-free zones" (educational institutions, houses of worship, government and health care facilities) only 40.7% of the shootings occurred in these places. Now, while that number is very significant, it does not support the narrative that shooters deliberately choose gun-free zones to carry out their attacks. ...

As noted elsewhere, the percentage of "gun free zones" is higher than that made up by "educational institutions, houses of worship, government and health care facilities", since many businesses will be posted, and in all too many cases in jurisdictions where the gun free zone starts at the city, county, or state line.

OTOH, not all educational institutions, houses of worship, or even government facilities are GFZs. I know a couple of guys who, as students at University of Washington, secured permission to carry on campus, and public libraries are also self-defense zones in WA.

Not saying the figures lie, but they might be misleading unless you do a lot more digging. I think the key take-away is actually in the penultimate paragraph:

Data do not lie, in this particular instance the bulk of those targeted in these shootings were known by the shooter, not chosen at random...

[Alpha Sierra]

I hope not, or that's not what I intended.

I do. I am 100% against any use of statistics or any other manipulable data to discuss/justify/indict my inalienable rights.

Those rights reside in a higher plane and are just not negotiable.

[45dotACP]

I look forward to the results Rob. In a class I took about interpretation of clinical research for nurses, I've found that most research on both sides of the gun control issue is likely not valid.

I'd listen to data from a source such as the FBI, but reading studies published by the Brady campaign and then paraded across MSNBC, then watching Fox counter with John Lott's 20 year old study....well it grows tiresome.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[JAD]

We have fundamentally different views. I don't believe rhetoric or emotion should rule, but cold hard logic should. Yes, I recognize that emotion rules the American political rhetoric.

-- I think that love should rule, but I think that love is supported by reason, so we're not actually that far apart.

But it doesn't rule a whole group of middle-grounders who actually prefer data.

If you think that's true, than rock on. I'm not sure, but as long as you clam the fuck up if the data doesn't work our way, it seems worth exploring.

[JAD]

I do. I am 100% against any use of statistics or any other manipulable data to discuss/justify/indict my inalienable rights.

Those rights reside in a higher plane and are just not negotiable.

The exercise of any of our rights is restricted to the extent that it creates no serious harm to others (supposing that you buy into freedom for excellence over freedom of indifference, which is probably asking too much). If Rob's data were to prove that the exercise of that right causes serious harm, it would be reasonable to restrict that right to some degree. It would only remain to be determined whether the restriction was more worser than the harm caused by the absence of restriction. Sadly, that's where being rational in a vacuum gets really hard -- it's very difficult to compare relative harm when they aren't the same kinds of harm.

But you're very right that the obverse isn't true. We don't have to prove, at all, that our rights produce good. They're good all by themselves.