Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 01:07 PM Jun 2015

Conservative Media Applaud Vince Vaughn For Pushing Debunked Right-Wing Talking Point On Guns

Conservative media are praising actor Vince Vaughn for repeating a debunked right-wing talking point that falsely claims most mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones."

Vaughn is receiving widespread attention for an interview he gave to British GQ in which he advocated the carrying of guns in public and in schools, declared that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against an "abusive government," and claimed that mass shootings have "only happened in places that don't allow guns."

Vaughn's claim about mass shootings in so-called "gun-free zones" is an oft-repeated talking point in right-wing media, but has been thoroughly debunked by several analyses of mass shootings.

[center][/center]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/01/conservative-media-applaud-vince-vaughn-for-pus/203833
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Conservative Media Applaud Vince Vaughn For Pushing Debunked Right-Wing Talking Point On Guns (Original Post) SecularMotion Jun 2015 OP
re: "Vaughn is receiving widespread attention..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2015 #1
How strange. beevul Jun 2015 #2
You forgot the rules for DU gun control statements Shamash Jun 2015 #3
Well, even their inferences... beevul Jun 2015 #4
Always remember guns kill people. ileus Jun 2015 #5
IIRC, there have been approx 65 "mass shootings" over the last 30+ years... Eleanors38 Jun 2015 #6
Lies, damned lies and Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #7
How do they define "mass shooting"? Straw Man Jun 2015 #8
To suit their arguments, as always. beevul Jun 2015 #9
I found the study referred to in the article NightRainFalls Jun 2015 #10
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
2. How strange.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 01:15 PM
Jun 2015

I could not find a cite to the data used to construct the graph.

How strange.

Of the private residences, did they bother to ask the homeowner, or did they assume they were not "gun free zones"?

I think that about sums up what needs saying.

 

Shamash

(597 posts)
3. You forgot the rules for DU gun control statements
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 02:41 PM
Jun 2015

1) Objective data sources are not allowed
2) Logical, consistent arguments are not permitted
3) You are only allowed to quote someone else's opinion of studies that you have never bothered to read
4) Always project your own failings on gun rights supporters (delicate feelings, name calling, bigotry, etc.)

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
4. Well, even their inferences...
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 02:56 PM
Jun 2015

They tend to infer things, like the number of homes with guns is lessening, for example.

Yet we are supposed to believe that in 100 percent of the cases where there was a mass shooting in a private residence, none were gun free zones, by decision of the home/property owner.

That's a tangled web of their own creation.


 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
6. IIRC, there have been approx 65 "mass shootings" over the last 30+ years...
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 03:57 PM
Jun 2015

It shouldn't be difficult to determine if the sites where these killings took place had some kind of restriction on the keeping and bearings of firearms. I am under the impression most of the sites did indeed have restrictions at the time of the shootings. I'm not all that concerned about it, though.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
7. Lies, damned lies and
Fri Jun 5, 2015, 07:23 AM
Jun 2015

statistics from Controller hacks who break the laws they demand be forced on everyone else.

If you're so keen on gun control laws why are you citing an organization whose founder broke Washington D.C. gun laws?

Straw Man

(6,612 posts)
8. How do they define "mass shooting"?
Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:46 PM
Jun 2015

Is anybody else having trouble with the concept of a "mass shooting" taking place in a "private residence"?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
9. To suit their arguments, as always.
Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:55 PM
Jun 2015
Is anybody else having trouble with the concept of a "mass shooting" taking place in a "private residence"?


Furthermore, we are told that gun ownership is shrinking. The number of households that own guns is shrinking.

Yet we are expected to believe, that of the mass shootings they cite which happened in a private residence, all allowed firearms.

NightRainFalls

(75 posts)
10. I found the study referred to in the article
Mon Jun 8, 2015, 01:37 PM
Jun 2015

and when I read it, I started laughing so hard that tears were running down my cheeks. I was literally crying. When the gun ban community is so willing to outright lie, and misrepresent the facts, it is difficult to even have a reasonable conversation with them. You have to literally fact check every single thing, and when you do, you find that so little of what they have to say is true.

Here is a link to the actual study. Analysis of Mass Shootings.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.everytown.org/images/MassShooting_v7_CS6_WEB.pdf#page=7

It turns out the Vaughn's speculation on mass shooting is far more accurate than the study Mediamatters.org sites. First, lets look at the graph supplied by the OP Secular Motion. It states that 14% "in gun free zones" while 86% not " gun free zones." The text beside it notes that "no more than 15 of the shootings took place entirely in in public spaces that were so called "gun free zones." The word entirely is a clue that the study group is being profoundly dishonest. For example, if a shooter steps out of the so called gun free zone during the attack, or if any part of his criminal act occurs outside of the gun free zone, then it is in the 86%. We might look at Sandy Hook and discover that according to the study, this is not a Mass shooting in a gun free Zone, since it started when Adam Lanza killed his mother in a non gun free zone. Indeed there is a case in this study, a school shooting in Santa Monica California where a shooter shot over 70 rounds at students and killed three. The school is a gun free zone but the researchers conclude that this should be in the 86% percent of non gun free zone shootings because the killer killed his father and brother at home before starting his rampage.

Now of course when the public, and Vaughn think of mass shootings, they are thinking of attacks like Sandy Hook. The study authors have very different ideas. The study authors think that if a criminal breaks into a house and kills a mother father and 2 children in the course of the robbery that this is a mass shooting. Most of the public think of this as a robbery gone bad. The study also sites a case where a drug gang hires some local thugs for security, the thugs kill several members of the gang and abscond with drugs and money. Most people wouldn't consider this a mass shooting either. Dozens of cases are domestic abuse cases where a parent or spouse kills their family. What we have here is a definition issue. Either side can argue their definition is correct. This, in and of itself, is not dishonest, it is only confusing. What is dishonest is media matters attempt to use this confusion to discredit Vaughn's accurate statement. From the context, it is clear Vaughn is not discussing robberies gone bad and domestic violence incidents. He is discussing things like Sandy Hook. He specifically states, "In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these f***ing schools because they know there are no guns there. They are monsters killing six-year-olds." He is talking about school shootings, not the run of mill robbery gone bad scenarios. If we look at school shootings, then it is clear that they all occur in gun free zones.

Aside from the fact that Mediamatters.org is deliberately taking Vaughn's off the cuff statement out of context, and ignoring his clarification of what type of attack is being discussed, the study that is cited has many problems. First, there are over one hundred mass shootings in the study. All of them are included in the graph of shootings in gun free zones. If you read the incident reports however, you find that only a very few have any data collected on whether guns were actually permitted in the area. In fact only 17 of the entries have any information on whether or not guns are allowed in the area. How can one classify over one hundred events, based on whether guns are permitted at the location of the events, without gathering information for most of the events. Profoundly dishonest.

To make matters worse, in many of the entries the gun policy is unknown or applies only to armed guards or police. These unknowns become part of the 86%. For example, this entry form Norcross GA 2/10/12. "There is no evidence the property owner forbade possession of firearms on their property." No evidence ends up in the 86%. Profoundly dishonest.

In several cases the mass shootings are police shootouts and since the police are armed, the area is not considered a gun free zone regardless of the policies in place. You read that right. If a place forbids guns, and a Police Officer carrying a gun on duty can walk into the establishment then it is not a gun free zone. Here is a quote from one of the incidents Lakewood, WA 11/29/2009 "Not a gun free zone." The police officers were armed at the time of the shooting." Keep in mind that police can go almost any place armed, so it is a miracle that any of the incidents in this study occurred in gun free zones.

It gets worse, but you probably get the idea by now.

David

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Conservative Media Applau...