USA Today presentation on mass killings

[bitterkenny]

Shocker, "assault weapons" are rarely used.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/mass-killings/index.html#title

Lots of other interesting stats. I'm a little surprised by USA Today's non-emotional and rather matter-of-fact reporting.

 

[EL1227]

Emotionally charged imagery hides the stats

Notice how the 'stats' are buried behind an emotionally slanted presentation ...

13th slide - The Majority of Mass Killings are Family Related

18th slide - Killers Often Target Family Members

USA Today is no friend of 2A ...

If you want stats without the emotional bent, read John Lott.

 

[Mr H]

Outlaw families???

Oh yeah... they're OK with the breakup of traditional society.

 

[abean4187]

Notice how the 'stats' are buried behind an emotionally slanted presentation ...

To be fair, what type of pictures do you expect them to put in a presentation about mass murders? I don't think a picture of bunnies and chocolate would be quite fitting.

Overall, I would say this was a very well written and fact driven presentation. It didn't make any political statements and just gave raw numbers. Very useful stuff in my opinion and I wish we had more like it.

 

[bitterkenny]

I don't think the presentation is advocating anything.

I just found to refreshing that it shows that a) "assault weapons" are the exception and b) cars and knives are used as well.

Sometimes I think we get so tunneled vision about what we believe in, we miss subtle things that can get other people thinking too. Just my 2 cents.

 

[madchestermonkey]

That's story was on their front page yesterday, shockingly with an anti-gun slant headline. But at least they seemed to print some facts with very few real gun related incidents. Would like to know what their parameter for "mass" was, seemed to be more than one.

 

[bitterkenny]

Would like to know what their parameter for "mass" was, seemed to be more than one.

I believe they followed the FBI definition of 4+.

 

[EL1227]

Psych 101

I don't think the presentation is advocating anything.

I just found to refreshing that it shows that a) "assault weapons" are the exception and b) cars and knives are used as well.

Sometimes I think we get so tunneled vision about what we believe in, we miss subtle things that can get other people thinking too. Just my 2 cents.

We don't need subtle things to know what others are being lead to think ...

From March of this year ...

USA Today Touts Anti-Gun Research by Soros-Linked Advocacy Group

USA Today Hypes Anti-Gun Study by Lefty Advocacy Group on Front Page

The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, or PIRE, is a Maryland based advocacy group that is anti-alcohol, anti-tobacco, and in its latest study, anti-gun.

And, it's NOT a recent phenomena. Prior to this year, USA Today has been much less subtle, so they needed to take a 'kinder and gentler' approach which plays right into the hands of legislators who pass laws based on emotion rather than facts, logic, and constitutional law.



To reiterate ... if you want stats, read John Lott ... LOTS of numbers and charts, but no tear jerking pictures to sway your thinking.

Images that convey emotion have the most impact

Photographers know the importance of capturing the emotion of a specific moment in time that will result in an emotional response from the viewer when they see the image, but producing images that have the same type of response is critical to creating images with impact, no matter what the content is. If the image suggests a mood that viewers can “feel” when they see it, they will remember that image.

e.g. - A picture is worth a 1,000 words.

 

[JettaRed]

Makes you wonder if the mass killings, especially the public ones, would not have become "mass" if the privilege to carry was easier to obtain.

 

[danb]

yes, the USA today is anti 2a, but there are a lot of stats in this presentation that are very useful, like the fact that single shot rifles are more often used than assault rifles. And handguns. It points to family, friends, failed relationships.

And, the fact that at the end it says a failed safety net is most often responsible.

The fact that it comes from an anti source means it cannot be so easily dismissed. John Lott produces a lot of stats, but many times when you say Lott, eyes roll, or facepalm. It's way better to point to a source that is perceived as neutral, or even better, somewhat anti. I personally like using the VPC stats against people. People cannot use the liars can figure argument, because the bias works against them.

 

[EL1227]

yes, the USA today is anti 2a, but there are a lot of stats in this presentation that are very useful, like the fact that single shot rifles are more often used than assault rifles. And handguns. It points to family, friends, failed relationships.

And, the fact that at the end it says a failed safety net is most often responsible.

The fact that it comes from an anti source means it cannot be so easily dismissed. John Lott produces a lot of stats, but many times when you say Lott, eyes roll, or facepalm. It's way better to point to a source that is perceived as neutral, or even better, somewhat anti. I personally like using the VPC stats against people. People cannot use the liars can figure argument, because the bias works against them.

Lott has never claimed that he's out to win a popularity contest. His stats are solid and even though they have been challenged many times, they still stand ... through three editions of his book, and they are being born out recently by those of the CDC and The Congressional Research Service. Sure, people roll their eyes, but they are usually the same ones whose eyes rolled to the back of their head while trying to keep awake in Econ 101.

AFA USA Today ... or USA Toady as I like to call it. There is a reason that they were shoved under your hotel door for free. You didn't see too many people actually buying a copy when they were mainly in print. When I traveled, I asked the front desk at Marriott to exchange it for the WSJ. It was (and still is) a populist rag geared for the ADHD generation who are drawn to the glitz and glitter. Sort of like the NYT meets The Enquirer.