Again, you’re not answering the question… either you’re being dishonest or intentionally obtuse here.
How is that the “correct” rate? What defines what is correct and what isn’t and why? If it’s incorrect, why is the FBI reporting that number? According to the article’s source that’s linked at the top, this economist (no idea why I should be taking data and crime reporting info from an economist) is saying it’s wrong because he has a semantic disagreement with the FBI on why incidents where the shooting is not the primary crime are not considered “mass shootings”. It’s a bit disingenuous.
Got it… so you don’t know and don’t even understand the article yourself. You keep posting the same thing. There’s no answer to the question. So that means you’re just dishonest. If it’s “all in the article”, it should be easy for you to quote the answer to the question I’m asking.
If you say the number is 4 and I say “you’re wrong, it’s 10” and don’t offer any explanation or evidence, then what makes my claim more accurate than yours? This is what’s happening here.
Edit: From your latest link: “Instead, the FBI lists this attack as being stopped by a security guard. A parishioner, who had volunteered to provide security during worship, fatally shot the perpetrator. That man, Jack Wilson, told Dr. John Lott that he was not a security professional.” So, as I said… dishonest semantics. In other words, this whole story is just a matter of redefining a word dishonestly and then criticizing the FBI for not following his new definition rather than the one that’s been used for decades.
I understand the article just fine. I just don’t get your confusion on the article.
I cited what you wanted and you were unable to understand it. That isn’t a problem with the data, that is a you problem. I even cited an article with all the data and you still didn’t understand it.
The other article breaks things down even more.
I can cite the information but it is up to you to be able to read and interpret it.
You clearly don’t if you can’t answer a simple question. You did not cite what I asked. You just quoted the part of the article where the guy says the FBI is wrong without pointing out why they’re wrong which is what my question was. And the “data” that they’re including is not at all data supportive of their conclusions. They’re merely redefining the definition of a shooting (dishonestly, I may add) and then feigning outrage that the FBI’s data doesn’t match theirs (because, spoiler alert, the FBI doesn’t define it the same way).
I can read and interpret data just fine. It’s my job to do so. You didn’t even look at the data, don’t understand the methodology, and can’t explain it or even answer a simple question about it. You’re a dishonest person who is afraid of their own shadow.
I cited what you asked. You just failed to understand it. It is clearly explained in the article.
Stop making weird personal attacks. I can’t help it that you can’t read well. That isn’t my problem. The article clearly explains your question and you can’t articulate why you are confused.
No, you didn’t. Where did you send anything that explains the methodology and difference between how the FBI is getting their counts versus where these jokers are getting their counts? Your avoidance of just providing an answer speaks volumes to the point it’s deafening. You’re a dishonest person who is trying to push something that you don’t have evidence for and are ignoring the questions being asked and the issues being pointed out.
Where have I stayed my stance in the topic? I didn’t. Once again you are showing you can’t read well or are a compulsive liar. Which is it? I didn’t make a comment on purpose as I wanted to see the opinions of others as I have my own opinion of Lott.
It isn’t my job to answer questions for you especially when it’s contained in the article. I will reply to a conversation about the topic itself as I find it an interesting topic.
Again with the lies. If you can’t answer a simple question and just keep telling others that they need to do the job of debunking your claims then you’re dishonest. On top of that, you keep parroting the line that “it’s so easy” and “it’s right there” and yet refuse to just cite one statement that shows what is being asked for. Claims without evidence can be just as easily ignored without evidence.
No one cares about your stance or whether you “stayed” it or not, whatever that means. We just want you to explain the information you posted that you claim contains something it doesn’t.
Again, you’re not answering the question… either you’re being dishonest or intentionally obtuse here.
How is that the “correct” rate? What defines what is correct and what isn’t and why? If it’s incorrect, why is the FBI reporting that number? According to the article’s source that’s linked at the top, this economist (no idea why I should be taking data and crime reporting info from an economist) is saying it’s wrong because he has a semantic disagreement with the FBI on why incidents where the shooting is not the primary crime are not considered “mass shootings”. It’s a bit disingenuous.
It’s all in the article. I’m not sure why you are confused. I find it very clear. This sounds like a you problem and not a problem with the data.
https://crimeresearch.org/2022/10/massive-errors-in-fbis-active-shooting-reports-regarding-cases-where-civilians-stop-attacks-instead-of-4-4-the-correct-number-is-at-least-34-4-in-2021-it-is-at-least-49-1-excluding-gun-free-zon/
Got it… so you don’t know and don’t even understand the article yourself. You keep posting the same thing. There’s no answer to the question. So that means you’re just dishonest. If it’s “all in the article”, it should be easy for you to quote the answer to the question I’m asking.
If you say the number is 4 and I say “you’re wrong, it’s 10” and don’t offer any explanation or evidence, then what makes my claim more accurate than yours? This is what’s happening here.
Edit: From your latest link: “Instead, the FBI lists this attack as being stopped by a security guard. A parishioner, who had volunteered to provide security during worship, fatally shot the perpetrator. That man, Jack Wilson, told Dr. John Lott that he was not a security professional.” So, as I said… dishonest semantics. In other words, this whole story is just a matter of redefining a word dishonestly and then criticizing the FBI for not following his new definition rather than the one that’s been used for decades.
I understand the article just fine. I just don’t get your confusion on the article.
I cited what you wanted and you were unable to understand it. That isn’t a problem with the data, that is a you problem. I even cited an article with all the data and you still didn’t understand it.
The other article breaks things down even more.
I can cite the information but it is up to you to be able to read and interpret it.
You clearly don’t if you can’t answer a simple question. You did not cite what I asked. You just quoted the part of the article where the guy says the FBI is wrong without pointing out why they’re wrong which is what my question was. And the “data” that they’re including is not at all data supportive of their conclusions. They’re merely redefining the definition of a shooting (dishonestly, I may add) and then feigning outrage that the FBI’s data doesn’t match theirs (because, spoiler alert, the FBI doesn’t define it the same way).
I can read and interpret data just fine. It’s my job to do so. You didn’t even look at the data, don’t understand the methodology, and can’t explain it or even answer a simple question about it. You’re a dishonest person who is afraid of their own shadow.
I cited what you asked. You just failed to understand it. It is clearly explained in the article.
Stop making weird personal attacks. I can’t help it that you can’t read well. That isn’t my problem. The article clearly explains your question and you can’t articulate why you are confused.
Have a good day,
No, you didn’t. Where did you send anything that explains the methodology and difference between how the FBI is getting their counts versus where these jokers are getting their counts? Your avoidance of just providing an answer speaks volumes to the point it’s deafening. You’re a dishonest person who is trying to push something that you don’t have evidence for and are ignoring the questions being asked and the issues being pointed out.
Where have I stayed my stance in the topic? I didn’t. Once again you are showing you can’t read well or are a compulsive liar. Which is it? I didn’t make a comment on purpose as I wanted to see the opinions of others as I have my own opinion of Lott.
It isn’t my job to answer questions for you especially when it’s contained in the article. I will reply to a conversation about the topic itself as I find it an interesting topic.
Again with the lies. If you can’t answer a simple question and just keep telling others that they need to do the job of debunking your claims then you’re dishonest. On top of that, you keep parroting the line that “it’s so easy” and “it’s right there” and yet refuse to just cite one statement that shows what is being asked for. Claims without evidence can be just as easily ignored without evidence.
No one cares about your stance or whether you “stayed” it or not, whatever that means. We just want you to explain the information you posted that you claim contains something it doesn’t.
My job is data analysis. Yours clearly isn’t.