Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean links to actual news articles that refutes your claims?Glenn Quagmire said:"To evaluate appropriate incidents to include and exclude, the FBI reviewed published studies and research articles on actual shooting incidents or related research conducted by other government agencies, appointed gubernatorial panels, local advisory commissions, and other public and private entities.
Using the federal definiton of active shooter and the general list of exclusionary and inclusionary factors, the FBI identified shooting incidents that occurred during the 2000 to 2013 time span that might fit into this study. This set of incidents was gathered from FBI data as well as other previously published lists of shooting incidents, including a comprehensive list of incidents developed by the New York Police Department and one of the most comprehensive studies of shooting incidents in the United States to date—a study from 2000 to 2010 conducted by researchers from Texas State University (TXST) and its Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center.
The FBI collected further data from law enforcement reports and international and open source information. A panel representing local law enforcement, the FBI, and TXST then used a deliberative process to identify the 160 active shooter incidents for this study. Researchers from TXST were consulted extensively throughout this analytical effort."
The research body of this study is well respected and peer reviewed. One only needs to look at the bibliography and footnotes in the study to see that these are some of the most respected people in the field.
The site you linked was difficult to read because I had to get past the ads for people magazine, among others. It also described no methodology or peer review. But hey, as long as it fits your confirmation bias, you are free to wallow in your own delusion.
So now a "news article" from "controversial times.com", pasted in between multiple online ads is your answer to an extensive, peer reviewed study?townpete said:You mean links to actual news articles that refutes your claims?
Typical liberal weasel.
Translation: I have nothing so weasel dictionary says to deflect to something, anything.Glenn Quagmire said:So now a "news article" from "controversial times.com", pasted in between multiple online ads is your answer to an extensive, peer reviewed study?
townpete said:A news report of actual event doesn't need to be peer reviewed. It's common sense.
It looks like a Republican.Ms Tree said:Reminds me of the story about a blind man trying to describe a elephant.
KCFlyer said:
Can you find any articles of a person with a gun who was in the middle of a surprise attack and who wasn't a trained police officer who "happened upon" an incident stopped the shooter.
700UW said:The COTUS says you have the right to bare arms nothing about concealed weapons.
And when that was written it was flintlock pistols and musket ball rifles, not assault weapons.
Not handguns, assault weapons and automatic weapons.