Surprise. "Good guys with Guns" are far more common than believed. - Totally honest FBI "errors" have made them seem much less commin, for no particular reason.

I'll wait till a news outlet more reliable that crimesearch.org reports on it. Like the verge, jezzabel or my next door neighbor's cat.


the criteria on the information published by the feds clearly defines it.
"guy with gun shoots another guy with gun" is not in most cases, an active shooter scenario. Bad research. If you are gonna add things like that, you need to add all the other gun crime that is then stopped by "good guy with gun" . and all the other news stories where the guy WASNT stopped by someone with a gun to at to the first total.
I flip a coin and only count the heads they say "everyone lies, heads or tails not 50/50" . its the same thing.

Yes it is all spin on both sides but this is just crap data set, cherry picking, and poor research.
 
  • Autistic
  • Like
  • Political Sperging
Reactions: Inafune Fanfiction, Pissmaster, Walrus and Carpenter 2.0 and 1 other person
Mr. Popo chan said:
I'll wait till a news outlet more reliable that crimesearch.org reports on it. Like the verge, jezzabel or my next door neighbor's cat.
Click to expand...

Ahhb yes, the old "Your sources are doody-heads" argument, only wielded by the most intellectually rigerous, informed individuals.
Mr. Popo chan said:
the criteria on the information published by the feds clearly defines it.
"guy with gun shoots another guy with gun" is not in most cases, an active shooter scenario.
Bad research. If you are gonna add things like that, you need to add all the other gun crime that is then stopped by "good guy with gun" . and all the other news stories where the guy WASNT stopped by someone with a gun to at to the first total.
I flip a coin and only count the heads they say "everyone lies, heads or tails not 50/50" . its the same thing.
Click to expand...


So are you just a lazy retarded faggot who did not actually read the article or are you the kind of retarded pansy ass faggot who is intentionally mischaraterising what is stated in the article?

Either way you are a retarded faggot, I'm just wondering which sort.
 
Sumptinsfuckey said:
Ahhb yes, the old "Your sources are doody-heads" argument, only wielded by the most intellectually rigerous, informed individuals.



So are you just a lazy retarded faggot who did not actually read the article or are you the kind of retarded pansy ass faggot who is intentionally mischaraterising what is stated in the article?

Either way you are a retarded faggot, I'm just wondering which sort.
Click to expand...
From all I have seen, crimesearch.org is crud . Is not a news site or data reporting site, it's an agenda site.

I didn't say the sources the site used itself were invalid, but the source data was cherry picked and the methods were poor.

If you add all the stories found that only match half the criteria to make your data look the way you want, you are doing it wrong.
The data sheet shows no numbers where active shooter incidents were both "missed by the FBI" and did NOT stopped by an armed citizen.
Given that they could find between 3 and 60 that support the narrative the story is trying to spin, there was no incentive to look to add to the overall total that I would argue would be necessary to have valid data. They mention them in the article, but the numbers in the headline, and the table of collected data makes no mention of missed by fbi reports where the the shooter was not stopped buy an armed citizen.
And as a side note, going to personal attacks rather than stating a counterpoint is also "wielded by the most intellectually rigorous, informed individuals."
 
Mr. Popo chan said:
The data sheet shows no numbers where active shooter incidents were both "missed by the FBI" and did NOT stopped by an armed citizen.
Given that they could find between 3 and 60 that support the narrative the story is trying to spin, there was no incentive to look to add to the overall total that I would argue would be necessary to have valid data. They mention them in the article, but the numbers in the headline, and the table of collected data makes no mention of missed by fbi reports where the the shooter was not stopped buy an armed citizen.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. If nobody stopped a shooting, then it's already in the denominator the FBI used. CPRC accepts that denominator and is arguing the numerator is wrong, then shows a list of cases that were left out of the numerator. The "missing cases" table is pretty straightforward. And the article already calls out the cases where the shooting wasn't stopped, by distinguishing them from cases where they were stopped:

An analysis by the CPRC identified a total of 440 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 157.
Click to expand...

So you're positing that there are some number of cases where a shooting happened, nobody stopped it... and neither the FBI nor CPRC noticed a shooting happened?

If you want to say the entire FBI data set is wrong, go ahead, but then you have an autistic gripe with the FBI, not the article in OP.
 
Sumptinsfuckey said:
So are you just a lazy retarded faggot who did not actually read the article or are you the kind of retarded pansy ass faggot who is intentionally mischaraterising what is stated in the article?

Either way you are a retarded faggot, I'm just wondering which sort.
Click to expand...
When you see such behavior, it's like looking in the mirror, isn't it? That's why you get so upset.
 
Harvey Danger said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. If nobody stopped a shooting, then it's already in the denominator the FBI used. CPRC accepts that denominator and is arguing the numerator is wrong, then shows a list of cases that were left out of the numerator. The "missing cases" table is pretty straightforward. And the article already calls out the cases where the shooting wasn't stopped, by distinguishing them from cases where they were stopped:



So you're positing that there are some number of cases where a shooting happened, nobody stopped it... and neither the FBI nor CPRC noticed a shooting happened?

If you want to say the entire FBI data set is wrong, go ahead, but then you have an autistic gripe with the FBI, not the article in OP.
Click to expand...


The missing cases fields are all stopped by citizen counts, they searched for all news stories that gunman was stopped by citizen, and was not on the fbi report.
To be accurate, they needed to search for ALL shooting stories, decide what ones fall into the active shooter criteria, then sort them by stopped or not stopped by citizen .
The data presented does not indicate that was done.

That is as me flipping a coin, reporting half the results, then someone going back through, taking only the heads results I didn't record, adding it to my report and saying "coin falls on heads more than tails"
 
Mr. Popo chan said:
The missing cases fields are all stopped by citizen counts, they searched for all news stories that gunman was stopped by citizen, and was not on the fbi report.
To be accurate, they needed to search for ALL shooting stories, decide what ones fall into the active shooter criteria, then sort them by stopped or not stopped by citizen .
Click to expand...

The article says they literally did that.

The FBI reports that armed citizens only stopped 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2022... An analysis by the CPRC identified a total of 440 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 157
Click to expand...
There were another 27 cases that we didn’t include where armed civilians stopped armed attacks, but the suspect didn’t fire his gun. Those cases are excluded from our calculations, though it could be argued that a civilian also stopped what likely could have been an active shooting event.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe them, fine, but then you're just calling them liars instead of analyzing methodology.

Again, you're complaining that there's some shootings out there that both the FBI and CPRC don't know about. That's always possible, but then you have to assume that a from-scratch analysis would reveal both additional non-stopped AND stopped shootings.

If you want to disagree with this article, you have to disagree with their classifications, and they seem solid enough. Or you have to disagree with the FBI's base numbers, which ironically is nearly what the CPRC is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back