10-14-2015, 04:06 PM
We're all just exchanging and expressing our opinions here, Maggot.
The conclusions drawn from gun research/information out there for all to see are often conflicting and often subjective. But, I like reading it all and find the objective raw data the most interesting. I'll read the report you linked when I get some uninterrupted time; I've only read a section of it before. Thanks for posting it.
Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about gun free zones and there are various reports drawing opposite conclusions about them based on the information/data available. Most recently, I read a report debunking the idea that mass shooters choose gun-free zones because they are soft targets.
Instead, the recent data showed that almost all domestic mass shooters choose the place because they have some personal affiliation with it or the people there (their workplace, their school, recreational place they frequently visit...). And, the idea of a good guy carrying a gun stopping shootings in non gun-free zones rarely plays out in reality. If that's true, then the fact that the sites are gun-free zones wouldn't have much or anything to do with why more gun violence occurs there.
There's no funding for professional, unbiased, complete, timely gun violence research in America. That funding keeps getting blocked (no matter who's sitting in the Oval Office). I've said it before I know, but I hope that changes soon (and think it might). The report you linked stipulates that it's based on international data and "some" domestic evidence; it's almost 8 years old with many of its cited sources dating back decades.
If we had dedicated expert researchers on the case, it would help in crafting effective policies based on objective evidence and conclusions. I suspect some long-held assertions on both sides would be proven false.
I don't know if that would reduce the screaming from both sides, but I think it might make it more focused.
The conclusions drawn from gun research/information out there for all to see are often conflicting and often subjective. But, I like reading it all and find the objective raw data the most interesting. I'll read the report you linked when I get some uninterrupted time; I've only read a section of it before. Thanks for posting it.
Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about gun free zones and there are various reports drawing opposite conclusions about them based on the information/data available. Most recently, I read a report debunking the idea that mass shooters choose gun-free zones because they are soft targets.
Instead, the recent data showed that almost all domestic mass shooters choose the place because they have some personal affiliation with it or the people there (their workplace, their school, recreational place they frequently visit...). And, the idea of a good guy carrying a gun stopping shootings in non gun-free zones rarely plays out in reality. If that's true, then the fact that the sites are gun-free zones wouldn't have much or anything to do with why more gun violence occurs there.
There's no funding for professional, unbiased, complete, timely gun violence research in America. That funding keeps getting blocked (no matter who's sitting in the Oval Office). I've said it before I know, but I hope that changes soon (and think it might). The report you linked stipulates that it's based on international data and "some" domestic evidence; it's almost 8 years old with many of its cited sources dating back decades.
If we had dedicated expert researchers on the case, it would help in crafting effective policies based on objective evidence and conclusions. I suspect some long-held assertions on both sides would be proven false.
I don't know if that would reduce the screaming from both sides, but I think it might make it more focused.