What you just posted doesn’t answer the question. The errors in question in the source say there were only 5 errors that weren’t corrected. That doesn’t change these statistics in the way they’re claiming.
The FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents that it identified for the period 2014-2022. The correct rate is almost eight times higher. And if we limit the discussion to places where permit holders were allowed to carry, the rate is eleven times higher," wrote Lott. He further noted, "[O]ut of 440 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2022, an armed citizen stopped 157. We also found that the FBI had misidentified five cases, usually because the person who stopped the attack was incorrectly identified as a security guard.
He was just noting five cases were listed as security guards.
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.
What you just posted doesn’t answer the question. The errors in question in the source say there were only 5 errors that weren’t corrected. That doesn’t change these statistics in the way they’re claiming.
The FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents that it identified for the period 2014-2022. The correct rate is almost eight times higher. And if we limit the discussion to places where permit holders were allowed to carry, the rate is eleven times higher," wrote Lott. He further noted, "[O]ut of 440 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2022, an armed citizen stopped 157. We also found that the FBI had misidentified five cases, usually because the person who stopped the attack was incorrectly identified as a security guard.
He was just noting five cases were listed as security guards.
The difference is 14 vs 157
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.