Auditing ShootingTracker.com: Do They Even Care About Facts?

1. How many of these mass shootings were gang related vs committed by people without a criminal past? Gun bans might prevent the latter but not the former.

   • Shhhhhh… Don’t mention that most are criminals involved in criminal enterprise. Think of the children! narrative!

   • That was almost exactly the first question to pop into my head – How many of these “mass shooting” were committed by a known violent criminal, gang banger, or domestic abuser/stalker? And how many were committed by a licensed (unconstitutional government permission slip) concealed carry holder or a private gun-owning citizen with no history of criminal or violent activity, or mental issues?

     Next point, how many of the victims in any of these assaults, whether “mass shootings” or not, also had a weapon and attempted to fire back in self defense? THAT would be an interesting statistic.

   • I’ve seen at least two instances of a gang-member’s body being found on a school’s property being called a “School Shooting”, so who the hell knows with these people. Its a fact free zone.

2. This is my favorite shooting rampage debunker, even if it is 3 years old. He looks at the “4 victims” limit in a different way, noting that when someone at the scene (usually a civilian, sometimes an off-duty cop) stops a shooting rampage, it ends before there are four victims. A handy and subtle way to bias the statistics and clai that good guys with guns never stop bad buys with guns.

   • Good point. How many of these incidents were stopped by someone else with a gun? Concealed carry lisences make up ~4% of the population. Of which I would wager less than half actually carry at all times.

3. Since when has accuracy mattered to them? They’ll be called on it and nobody will care. how long have they continued to use the 40% myth despite it being conclusively put down?

4. Rough numbers, 50 out of 1000 shootings reported have problems and 50 can’t be verified. Does it really matter that they’re off by 10%? If you’re a gun grabber reading an article on how terribly unreliabe shootingtracker is, you’re thinking, but holy crap, what about the 900 that were right? It’s senseless to quabble over this.

   For instance, there’s roughly 10,000 people in a country of 330,000,000 who are murdered each year by ballistic assailants (I guess thats an epidemic or something, CDC says 3,000 to 49,000 people die of the flu each year, but that’s not an epidemic or something.) Does it really matter that 10,000 people die? Would the gun grabbers pretend to be any less shocked, horrified, or demanding of action if it were 20,000? What if it were only 1,000? Or 500? The answer is no.

   I think it’s important that if were going to play into their irrelevant numbers games that we make the numbers evern more irrelevanter by reminding folks that no amount of people who die or are attacked makes an individuals right to be able to protect themselves with a gun any less important, and the anywhere from 100,000 to 2.5million people per year who do protect themselves with a gun are thankful for it.

   • No, it’s 10% on TOP of the 85% that is completely wrong. The Congressional report on mass shootings (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf) showed that there were 25 mass shootings in 2013, shooting tracker said there were 363. MST is reporting 14x the actual number.

5. “No citation and/or dead link unable to verify the story”
   Then it is not news, only a fary tale.

6. #108 – 5/17/2015 – 9 dead, 18 wounded in Waco Texas. Mass shooting or trigger happy cops?

7. They’re pathetic; in a thread on their subreddit, a reader writes;

   But according to youdogknowsmoreaboutgunsthanwedo.com, 2 pellet gun shootings out of a 1000 total is fucking Goebbels.

   Yet it’s way more than that, their bullshit is being discovered, story by story. But they’ll keep parroting it around. Because guns.

8. No, they don’t care. They cook the books and stretch things out by design because their data set would be as small as their I.Q. otherwise. They have to provide Pope Barry with is bogus statistics. Bloomberg likes to fund these groups through back door channels to keep the going. Otherwise, they would have limited donations to keep them running.

9. I also investigated the guy who runs this site, and found his Youtube channel. He loves violent games like Battlefield and Call of Duty. Hypocrite much?

10. I have the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit. I was USAF military police honorably discharged with full pension. I am eligible for HR 218. I would protect you.
    No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

11. So much work and effort into such a pig of a bike and still it hold just holds a candle to a

12. So, 90% of them are fully valid … not perfect, but not exactly deceptive, right?

13. 54 could not be verified due to the lack of citations
    34 were either not mass shootings or could not be confirmed as mass shootings due to the lack of information
    7 stretched the definition of a mass shooting, with one person committing separate shootings anywhere from one day to two weeks apart
    4 were mass shootings according to the shooting tracker’s definition but the listed number of victims was incorrect
    1 was a ‘mass shooting’ committed with a pellet gun

    How do you find exactly 100 entries that should be disregarded!!!??? LOL

14. mass shooting is vague.
    the term mass is vague.
    arguing over these definitions is just childish and lazy.

    How many people were killed?
    How many people were wounded physically?
    How many people were wounded psychologically?
    I mean, PTSD has to be involved here.

    Then ask, do we even care since it is such a small number of the total number of people in the USA.

    I remember an old man shooting an unarmed young man in my neighborhood with a shotgun when I was a child. That has an impact on a child like me. Everyone becoming so afraid when the other person has no weapon.

15. Check this part out on the shootingtracker.com site. LOL
    ”
    Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition:

    FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter.

    This difference is that we do not count the shooter among the victims when determining if a shooting reaches the threshold of Mass Shooting. It insures a clear separation between victims of a shooting and those who perpetrate the crime. GVA also does not parse the definition to exclude any type of gun violence such as gang shooting or domestic violence. The definition is purely numerical and reflects ALL shootings which reach that statistical threshold.
    ”
    the FBI definition included the shooter in the count of victims??? LOL
    Even I am not that sympathetic. LOL

    Well, the FBI really means three then.

Comments are closed.