禁不禁枪和东八区穷蛆有关系吗？快去请sub内北美蝙蝠人来指点

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

你怎么不说most mass public shootings happened in the US

尴尬

gun-free是禁枪的意思吗？我英语不好，有没有英语老嗨来解释下。

真不关心你们北美

gun free zone就是在告诉别人：请来这儿杀人，贼安全，没人可以反抗，顶多一个警卫

如果在拥枪人多的地方敢枪击，刚准备开枪你就被打死了，枪手不可能嚣张到屠杀20人而没有被立即击毙

百分之一百的核弹被打击国是无核国家(

死人百分之一百是活人变的

左逼一般不喜欢承认自己不认可的数据。

？因为学校人多所以禁枪，来着自动枪来可以大面积高效杀很多人，🕷️不要颠倒因果

哪的数据？有无fc

所以AR15要从幼儿园抓起

🕷️的一个特点就是喜欢看图不喜欢读文字

What evidence is there that gun-free zones attract mass shooters?

The evidence is thin. It’s a belief popularized by John Lott Jr., an economist and gun rights activist who claims that, since 1950, almost every single mass public shooting in the United States has occurred in a place where guns were banned. Lott has published a large body of work claiming that crime goes down as states loosen gun laws and allow more people to carry concealed handguns. But critics say Lott’s work is flawed because he cherry-picks data. Several experts and academics have tested his hypotheses and reached vastly different conclusions. A committee of experts at the National Research Council, a non-governmental research arm of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, found that there was not enough evidence to support Lott’s claim that more guns mean less crime. A team from Stanford and Johns Hopkins reached an opposite conclusion to Lott’s: more guns mean more violent crime. Another team of researchers studied two decades of mass shootings, defined as an episode that left four or more people dead. They concluded that allowing more people to carry concealed weapons had “no effect” on the frequency of such incidents. And narrowing the scope to what could be called “rampage shootings” — events that result in at least six deaths and attract widespread media attention — the answer still appears to be that shooters don’t seek out gun-free zones. Louis Klarevas, whose book Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings, examined 111 shooting attacks between 1966 and 2015 that left six or more victims dead in each instance. He divided the shootings into three categories based on where they took place: gun-free zones (no guns on the premises); gun-restricting zones (no guns allowed, but armed security is routinely present); and gun-allowing zones (civilians permitted to carry guns). Klarevas found that only 18 rampage attacks occurred in spaces where civilians were not allowed to have guns. He also found that the overwhelming majority, or nearly 90 percent of gun massacres, happened in places where guns were allowed. “Without question,” he concluded, “gun-allowing zones do not deter massacres.” What the research does show is that mass shooters target places and people they know. A Mother Jones analysis of 62 mass shootings that took place in a 30-year span found that the majority of gunmen targeted places with which they had a personal connection, and “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” In fact, 20 of the attacks were workplace shootings, most of which involved a disgruntled employee. Using his dataset of 111 rampage attacks, Klarevas estimates that, in 86 percent of the cases, the attacker had a relationship to his victims.

怎麼會是呢

Researcher John Lott claimed that 98% or more of mass shootings from 1950 to the present occurred in gun-free zones.

Lott’s false claim is based on a basic error. For the period 1977–1997, Lott counts each individual mass shooting death as an entire mass shooting incident.

Even after Lott corrected his mistake, he made a new claim that 94% of mass shootings occurred in gun-free places, which is also based on flawed data and contradicts other research that concludes that 12% to 13% of mass shootings occur where guns are prohibited.

理性，逻辑，事实一直都是左逼的死穴

这个图是来自于假数据，骗人的

假资料，再者用常理也能明白，像学校这种区域本来就禁枪，问题是右逼的解决方法是啥？给学生发枪？给50岁大妈老师发枪？