FACTS to Diffuse the Anti's . . .

[DHC]

I wonder if we might come up with a set if irrefutable FACTS that may be cited to address the emotional arguments of the anti-gun crowd?

This would be particularly effective if some key facts congeal into common denominators that affect/influence several of these mass shootings.

For example, here are a couple of things I was thinking about:

* Mental instability of the shooter
* Gun-free zone
* Existing laws worked properly

In the case of the CT shooting:

* Shooter was known to have some form of mental disorder in advance of the shooting
* The site of the shooting was a school that prohibits firearms
* The shooter was denied purchase of firearms several days prior to the incident

In the case of Aurora shooting:

* Shooter was clearly identified with serious and dangerous mental issues in advance of the shooting
* The site was a theater with a posted anti-gun message
* In this instance, it appears the purchases were all legal and there were no denials.

What about others?

I know I can, and probably will later, do the research to find similar fact patterns with recent mass shootings, but I throw this out to y'all to fill in any gaps and identify any other common characteristics that might be illuminating.

[spqrzilla]

How about the fact that Connecticut has most of the gun control laws that gun control advocates claim are the 'solution', including waiting periods and "assault weapons" ban.

[Byte Stryke]

How about the fact that he committed 41 crimes.
42 and 43 would have done as much to stop him as the first 41

[Sharpienads]

How about the fact that he committed 41 crimes.
42 and 43 would have done as much to stop him as the first 41

Reminds me of the joke about the guy that ordered 11 shots of whiskey to celebrate his first bj and the bartender offered to make it an even dozen. But I digress...

[Irving]

I plan to derail the conversation by pointing out that all these instances are carried out by males. Then ask for a gender specific solution.

[Great-Kazoo]

FACTS mean nothing to a person / government with an agenda. That's a FACT

[Irving]

FACTS mean nothing to a person / government with an agenda. That's a FACT

100% correct. Try telling your screaming wife what you actually said sometime. Same result. You lose.

[DHC]

FACTS mean nothing to a person / government with an agenda. That's a FACT

No, but they do mean something to a reasonable listener. If we do not take the time to develop the facts, then we are no better than those who respond reactively and emotionally to these incidents. As the debate progresses, sooner or later it needs to move beyond the raw emotion and delve deeply into the facts. I may be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that our best and only chance of success revolves around the hope our citizenry is more rational and reasoned than our politicians. Admittedly, my position is neutered at least a little by the fact the citizenry voted the current administration back into power - but it remains, I believe, our best chance of success in fending off the over-emotional zealots.

FWIW

[brutal]

FACTS mean nothing to a person / government with an agenda. That's a FACT

I tried using facts on twitter and got suspended inside two hours. Facts are lost on the gun-grabbers.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[DHC]

I tried using facts on twitter and got suspended inside two hours. Facts are lost on the gun-grabbers.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Would you care to re-post those facts here? They may be helpful in developing the type of fact pattern I was suggesting upthread.