# "Your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471 "2014-05-28T16:41:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/321 "2014-06-19T03:26:51Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > For a group attempting a massive deception, they’ve been remarkably open and clear about what they’re talking about. The sole argument against how they went about this seems to be, “Well, they didn’t read my mind and know that I wouldn’t agree with their definition or read the definition they provided! Those tricksy devils!” That’s not quite right. I don’t think they lied. But in their social media output the methodology isn’t disclosed - only the soundbyte. My opinion - which you clearly disagree - was that this was intentional. Do you disagree with Politifact’s assessment? They laid out the reasoning very clearly. If you do, that’s fine. YMMV and all. I think you’re in the minority though but I have no way to demonstrate that. I’m okay agreeing to disagree on this point. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/322 "2014-06-19T09:31:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That’s not quite right. I don’t think they lied. But in their social media output the methodology isn’t disclosed - only the soundbyte. My opinion - which you clearly disagree - was that this was intentional. Do you disagree with Politifact’s assessment? They laid out the reasoning very clearly. If you do, that’s fine. YMMV and all. Actually, I’m not so sure that Politifact do consider it to be _intentionally_ misleading. They rate it as false, certainly, and they cite several people who agree with them that it is misleading, but they don’t actually accuse Everytown of doing so deliberately. The soundbytes being intentionally misleading are still reliant on those definitions, really. Soundbytes by nature are necessarily briefer, and I’m generally skeptical of short blurbs like that when they come from advocacy groups. However, in this case, I find I don’t disagree with the underlying reasoning. Too much, anyway. > [@](#): > > I think you’re in the minority though but I have no way to demonstrate that. I’m okay agreeing to disagree on this point. Well, I think I have Politifact on my side, as far as maliciousness goes. But you’re right, I’m not sure how we can prove the point either way generally speaking. Both you and **Damuri** seem to disagree with my definition of “lying”, which is interesting in and of itself. If I agreed with you on Everytown’s actions, I’d have no problem calling an intentional deception like that a lie. I might have to start a new thread on what counts as lying. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/323 "2014-06-19T13:50:13Z")
> [@epbrown01](#): > > The above stats are misleading because they focus solely on guns as cause of death in murders and don’t account for size of population. Population numbers aren’t nearly as important as \*gun owning population _numbers_. \*And what we know is that the percentage of households with guns has generally \*fallen \*over the last 40 years, from near 50% in the early 70s to a bit over 30% today. We should expect that fewer households with guns = reduced gun violence. What hasn’t changed? The basic fact that having a gun in the house represents more danger, not safety, for every family member in that house. If the number of gun victims was declining despite \*more \*households owning guns, the gunners might have a point about ‘more guns = safer!!’. But it’s not, and they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/324 "2014-06-19T23:53:00Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > There’s a case to be made for the targets/shooters identities, the backdrop to the shooting in terms of missed shots, and so on for the corner, too, but I suspect that’s not what you’re asking about. Nope, I’m asking in what way does catagorizing one as a school shooting and the other as just a shooting advance or inform the debate at all? > [@](#): > > I don’t agree that that is “known”, frankly. Lets assume that it is for the sake of argumetn because if people generally think of a gang shooting taht occurs ina schoolyard in the middle of the night as a school shooting and they understood the statistic to refer to these sort of shootings then I’ve got no more argument. So for the sake of argument… > [@](#): > > But even if it was - if I’m saying at the same time, “Hey, by the way, when I talk about football, I’m talking about that soccer game, no pads and things like that, currently there’s the World Cup going on”, even if every person around me would have thought I was talking about American football, they would certainly have no reason to think I was thanks to my explanations, right? Like how Everytown set out their methodology, the data of their numbers, and their definitions along with their report? Is that what obama did when he repeated the statistic in his speech? is that what people who repeat that statistic does? Or do they use the statistic and link it to newtown and Columbine? > [@](#): > > For a group attempting a massive deception, they’ve been remarkably open and clear about what they’re talking about. The sole argument against how they went about this seems to be, “Well, they didn’t read my mind and know that I wouldn’t agree with their definition or read the definition they provided! Those tricksy devils!” I think they did read my mind and the minds of the vast majority of people who hear the words school shooting and think of Newtown and Columbine. But I guess I could be wonr. I don’t actually know what everyone is thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/325 "2014-06-19T23:57:19Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > What hasn’t changed? The basic fact that having a gun in the house represents more danger, not safety, for every family member in that house. Cite? > [@](#): > > If the number of gun victims was declining despite \*more \*households owning guns, the gunners might have a point about ‘more guns = safer!!’. But it’s not, and they don’t. I don’t know that more guns=safer but the states have increasinly been liberalizing their concealed carry rules over the years and it hasn’t increased murder rates so more concealed carry guns/=less safe, or so it seems. But I don’t know how you have a controlled experiment on this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/326 "2014-06-20T01:06:44Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > So that’s what a well regulated militia looks like. And it’s arguably necessary for the Swiss to have such a militia, considering the wars that have been fought all around them for centuries. The Americans, though, are more likely to go to war with themselves again than be invaded, so I’m not clear that a militia serves any viable purpose, though it has made it a lot easier for them to kill each other in large numbers. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/327 "2014-06-20T08:54:46Z")
Some researchers think that game difficulty is as (or possibly more) important than ‘violent’ content: > [@](#): > > Ryan says that many critics of video games have been premature in their conclusions that violent video games cause aggression. “It’s a complicated area, and **people have simplistic views** ,” he explains, noting that nonviolent games like Tetris or Candy Crush can leave players as, if not more, aggressive than games with violence, if they’re poorly designed or too difficult Research also suggests that heavy users are \*less \*impacted by violent video games: > [@](#): > > \*\*Violent Video Games Have Lower Effects on Highly-exposed Teens \*\* > Although there were few differences in reactions during the time spent playing the games, some significant differences appeared later. While sleeping later that night, boys in the low-exposure group had faster heart rates after playing the violent game, compared to the night after playing the nonviolent game. In contrast, **for boys in the high-exposure group, heart rate was lower on the night after playing the violent game**. On sleep questionnaires, low-exposed boys also reported lower sleep quality on the night after playing the violent game, compared to the nonviolent game. For **high-exposed boys, there was no difference in sleep quality** after playing the two games. And that’s before we get to the crux of your ridiculous ‘movies and video games’ idea, there isn’t a shred of research or evidence linking video games and movies to crime rates. In fact, violent juvenile crime in the US declined by over 70% between the mid-90s and late 2000s, even as video game sales sky-rocketed. However, answering the door with a [game controller in your hand can get you shot](http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/02/19/attorney-teen-shot-killed-by-police-was-holding-wii-video-game-controller/). Maybe the police officer was playing too many violent video games. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/328 "2014-06-20T14:47:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Nope, I’m asking in what way does catagorizing one as a school shooting and the other as just a shooting advance or inform the debate at all? It informs us as to location, I suppose. I think the point being made is “look how possible it is for people to get and use guns on school property”, effectively. > [@](#): > > Lets assume that it is for the sake of argumetn because if people generally think of a gang shooting taht occurs ina schoolyard in the middle of the night as a school shooting and they understood the statistic to refer to these sort of shootings then I’ve got no more argument. So for the sake of argument… > > Is that what obama did when he repeated the statistic in his speech? is that what people who repeat that statistic does? Or do they use the statistic and link it to newtown and Columbine? Surely those instances of other people and organisations using those statistics are… down to those other people and organisations? I’ve been arguing about Everytown. If you’d like to make a case for other groups misusing or misrepresenting those statistics, certainly. But I don’t see how if other people use them wrongly that’s something we should be putting at the feet of Everytown. > [@](#): > > I think they did read my mind and the minds of the vast majority of people who hear the words school shooting and think of Newtown and Columbine. But I guess I could be wonr. I don’t actually know what everyone is thinking. Maybe we should hire the Everytown staffers to stand outside schools, then. Psychics would be useful for picking up intent before action, though I don’t know how legal that would be. Seriously, though - there’s a disconnect between “I don’t actually know what everyone is thinking” on one hand and then basing your judgment of Everytown on what everyone is thinking on the other hand. Unless you’re withdrawing your judgment? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/329 "2014-06-20T15:09:47Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Surely those instances of other people and organisations using those statistics are… down to those other people and organisations? I’ve been arguing about Everytown. If you’d like to make a case for other groups misusing or misrepresenting those statistics, certainly. But I don’t see how if other people use them wrongly that’s something we should be putting at the feet of Everytown. The point is that while Everytown listed the details of their methodology on their website, on the other social media outlets that the information was posted on it was not readily apparent. Even still, Everytown would or should know that the information would be used in a fashion similar to what actually happened, that is the figure got repeated without disclaimer. That’s why it’s fair to say they didn’t lie - they didn’t. But they did know how the information would be used, and that it would be in a misleading way. Politifact is not on your side of this issue (the truthiness of Everytown). ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/330 "2014-06-20T20:08:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The point is that while Everytown listed the details of their methodology on their website, on the other social media outlets that the information was posted on it was not readily apparent. Even still, Everytown would or should know that the information would be used in a fashion similar to what actually happened, that is the figure got repeated without disclaimer. That’s why it’s fair to say they didn’t lie - they didn’t. But they did know how the information would be used, and that it would be in a misleading way. > > Politifact is not on your side of this issue (the truthiness of Everytown). I agree with you that the figure would almost inevitably be repeated without disclaimer - a short snappy headline is good for the media. But, again, I agree with Everytown’s definitions, minus the suicides, which means that for me the number sans disclaimer is still fine. Again, you’re assuming intent to misrepresent and working from there. If Everytown feels that that number absent disclaimer is correct, then others cutting off their disclaimer doesn’t alter their point. Politifact is not on your side of this issue (the malicious intent of Everytown). ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/331 "2014-06-20T21:20:01Z")
I don’t think it was malicious. I do believe it was intentional. And it is a flase claim. Politifact agrees with that. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/332 "2014-06-20T22:58:15Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It informs us as to location, I suppose. I think the point being made is “look how possible it is for people to get and use guns on school property”, effectively. I suppose I’m wondering how it adds anything to the debate to point out that people with guns can access schoolyards after school hours in the middle of the night. > [@](#): > > But I don’t see how if other people use them wrongly that’s something we should be putting at the feet of Everytown. Maybe we should hire the Everytown staffers to stand outside schools, then. Psychics would be useful for picking up intent before action, though I don’t know how legal that would be. OK, maybe Everytown was just compiling data using transparent criteria and it was just misused by others. I still think the data is useless for any relevant purpose unless it is intended to be repeated without the caveats. > [@](#): > > Seriously, though - there’s a disconnect between “I don’t actually know what everyone is thinking” on one hand and then basing your judgment of Everytown on what everyone is thinking on the other hand. Unless you’re withdrawing your judgment? I can’t prove intent obviously so I would be satisfied if you agreed that everyone that repeated the statistic without the caveats were guilty of misleading their audience. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/333 "2014-06-21T02:45:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I can’t prove intent obviously so I would be satisfied if you agreed that everyone that repeated the statistic without the caveats were guilty of misleading their audience. Perhaps even this wasn’t done intentionally but if they did it unintentionally then we have to ask how they could have believed what they believed unless they were somehow misled. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/334 "2014-06-21T09:20:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think it was malicious. I do believe it was intentional. And it is a flase claim. Politifact agrees with that. That’s true of Politifact. I was using “malicious” to mean “deliberately misleading”, but I’m happy to drop that. Regardless - Politifact _don’t_ make a claim of it being intentional. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/335 "2014-06-21T09:31:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I suppose I’m wondering how it adds anything to the debate to point out that people with guns can access schoolyards after school hours in the middle of the night. If your cause is gun control, why doesn’t pointing to examples of criminal activity on school property using guns make sense? It’s access. I can’t imagine the majority of schools have defences that work only during school hours. If anything, the opposite, since you could lock more up. > [@](#): > > I can’t prove intent obviously so I would be satisfied if you agreed that everyone that repeated the statistic without the caveats were guilty of misleading their audience. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Perhaps even this wasn’t done intentionally but if they did it unintentionally then we have to ask how they could have believed what they believed unless they were somehow misled. _Everyone_? Goodness. No, I can’t do that. Make your case for them, if you’d like to prove particular examples of wrongdoing. As for your second point… I agree with the number. I would have no difficulty telling people that it was a correct one, minus the suicides. Do you believe that I have been somehow misled? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/336 "2014-06-21T15:02:36Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If your cause is gun control, why doesn’t pointing to examples of criminal activity on school property using guns make sense? It’s access. I can’t imagine the majority of schools have defences that work only during school hours. If anything, the opposite, since you could lock more up. I guess I don’t see how examples of criminal activity that occurs after school hours adds very much to the debate about school shootings. After all its not all shootings throughout history, its all school shootings since Sandy Hook. The 74th shooting that triggered the article was a lot more like Sandy Hook. IMO, when they bookend the school shootings with Newtown and the one in Oregon, they are trying to make a link between these 74 shootings and shootings like Sandy Hook but no I can’t prove that was their intent. But YMMV. > [@](#): > > _Everyone_? Goodness. No, I can’t do that. Make your case for them, if you’d like to prove particular examples of wrongdoing. When President Obama used the 74 school shooting number in the same speech that he mentioned Newtown and Oregon. That seems a bit misleading. I have heard the 74 number spill out of politician’s mouths and they never seem to add that this includes all shots fired on campuses and includes suicides, and self defense. > **[Suspect and 1 Student Dead in Oregon School Shooting, the 74th in the U.S....](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/06/oregon-school-shooting-74th-since-newtown.html)** > > A school shooting every eight days. Includes the disclaimer but portrays the caveat as if it was a limitation “The numbers, compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety, which has the full list, include any time, fatal or not, “a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds, as documented in publicly reported news accounts,” and **therefore may actually be under-counting**.” Bolding mine > **[All 74 School Shootings Since Newtown, In One Depressing Map](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/school-shootings-since-newtown_n_5480811)** > > All 74 School Shootings Since Newtown, In One Depressing Map Here it look like the caveat was added as a clarification after original publication. The internet is replete with examples of articles like this. > [@](#): > > As for your second point… I agree with the number. I would have no difficulty telling people that it was a correct one, minus the suicides. Do you believe that I have been somehow misled? No you have not but I think the vast majority of people who hear this number have been if my facebook feed is any indication. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/337 "2014-06-21T17:27:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No you have not but I think the vast majority of people who hear this number have been if my facebook feed is any indication. If I thought that what was on Facebook was a true representation of what the vast majority of people think I would move to Antarctica. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/338 "2014-06-21T23:47:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I guess I don’t see how examples of criminal activity that occurs after school hours adds very much to the debate about school shootings. After all its not all shootings throughout history, its all school shootings since Sandy Hook. The 74th shooting that triggered the article was a lot more like Sandy Hook. IMO, when they bookend the school shootings with Newtown and the one in Oregon, they are trying to make a link between these 74 shootings and shootings like Sandy Hook but no I can’t prove that was their intent. But YMMV. I absolutely agree that they were trying to make a link between these 74 shootings and shootings like Sandy Hook - that they were all school shootings. > [@](#): > > When President Obama used the 74 school shooting number in the same speech that he mentioned Newtown and Oregon. That seems a bit misleading. I have heard the 74 number spill out of politician’s mouths and they never seem to add that this includes all shots fired on campuses and includes suicides, and self defense. I wouldn’t have, if I’d been one of those politicians or media figures. Again, you’re assuming their definitions agree with yours. > [@](#): > > [Suspect and 1 Student Dead in Oregon School Shooting, the 74th in the U.S. Since Sandy Hook](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/oregon-school-shooting-74th-since-newtown.html) > > Includes the disclaimer but portrays the caveat as if it was a limitation > > “The numbers, compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety, which has the full list, include any time, fatal or not, “a firearm was discharged inside a school building or on school or campus grounds, as documented in publicly reported news accounts,” and **therefore may actually be under-counting**.” Bolding mine Right. Because it _is a limitation. They limited what they counted by a particular definition. The Politifact article_ Bone\*\* brought up gives an example of one shooting that I’d tend to suggest even he and you would include under your definitions of “school shooting”, but that Everytown didn’t, because it didn’t match their criteria. I’m not sure I understand what you’re criticising this particular article for when they seem to go into detail about the definitions and suggest what they could mean. After all, your point is that the caveats make a massive change to the data in and of themselves, right? They completely change your understanding when you find them out? And they put that information there for you. > [@](#): > > [All 74 School Shootings Since Newtown, In One Depressing Map | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-newtown-_n_5480811.html) > > Here it look like the caveat was added as a clarification after original publication. I agree it looks that way to me, too. And yet, I still don’t see this as obviously deliberately misleading, because again, to do so we need to make assumptions about the writer based on… well, nothing, apparently. And they ended up making the clarification - what, they only wanted to mislead some people, and not the rest? > [@](#): > > The internet is replete with examples of articles like this. The internet is replete with examples of articles declaring everything you could imagine. It’s the internet. > [@](#): > > No you have not but I think the vast majority of people who hear this number have been if my facebook feed is any indication. Again, internet, as **Czarcasm** points out. Also, even if your Facebook feed was filled with geniuses of great note, I can’t imagine there’s enough people on there to get any kind of representative sample. Let’s say 200 as a high for anyone? Even a thousand people wouldn’t be anywhere near a good enough sample to judge “the vast majority of people who hear these numbers”. Are they also what you’re basing the idea of how widespread your definition of school shootings is? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/339 "2014-06-22T01:27:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If I thought that what was on Facebook was a true representation of what the vast majority of people think I would move to Antarctica. So you think most people who hear this number understand that it comes with the caveat that it includes any time someone is shot on school grounds including suicides or gang shootings in the middle of the night? ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/340 "2014-06-22T01:31:35Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > It is already illegal to murder someone with a gun. Ya think? I thought that second amendment rights trumped that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471.md?page=18)