Awwww…too bad.

Suicide by gun is not ‘gun violence’.

Suicide is the result of mental health illness overwhelming compulsion, be it temporary or not. In short, a gun did not jump up by its self and kill them…suicide is ‘mental health illness violence’.

No one calls it ‘rope violence when a person commits suicide by hanging. No one calls it ‘poison violence when a person commits suicide by self-poisoning. The same for any other method used…but when it comes to guns a person who uses a gun to commit suicide the anti-gun people and media call it ‘gun violence’ instead of what it really is which is ‘mental health illness violence’

You whole thing is ‘I like hunting, so it should stay…but’ – the classic anti-gun ‘but’ which is always followed by 2A rights infringements on the honest law abiding and threats of ‘ban everything gun’ and biased studies full of biased data to give a false impression to idiots willing to believe it cause anti-gun said so.

Not only the above, but, the GVA counts valid legal self defense as ‘mass shooting’. For example, the incident in the mall where the law abiding gun owner saw and prevented a ‘mass shooter’ from firing a shot by engaging them first – the mass shooter retreated to cover and killed him self, but because others in the mall were fleeing and some fell down and got injured as a result of the fall the GVA considered them ‘victims of a mass shooting’ and included it as a mass shooting in their numbers. Another example, a woman defended her family and self against four armed home invaders that were for a fact going to kill them and had even started in on the children – she used her AR-15 and standard capacity magazines (e.g. 30 round magazine) to defend (one bad guy shot, the rest ran) and the GVA counted it as a ‘mass shooting’.

The GVA does not, contrary to their claims, actually vet the media stories they use. The left wing media sources are more often wrong than they are right, a lot of times intentionally wrong, and they never go back and correct the inaccuracy of their original, for their claimed ‘shootings’. Yet GVA just takes it at face value and and doesn’t actually vet the information to ensure its accuracy or truthfulness and never follows up to look for corrections or retractions for the original story.

The GVA definitions are self-serving and exploited frequently by them. For example, ‘school shooting’ – a guy on his youtube channel contacted them when he did the research using the GVA’s own sources and exposed the inflated numbers. It turns out that they include a lot of incidents that were not ‘school shootings’. For example: a couple of kids with a BB gun during summer vacation when school is out, were walking to somewhere else to shoot their BB gun in a wooded area. During their walk they crossed through the school parking lot, school was closed due to summer vacation, it was empty, no one there, but a local resident saw them and called the police. The police showed up, but in the mean time the person who called the police contacted the media and reported to them ‘a shooter at a school and police were responding’ and of course it became a headline about police responding to a school shooting. The cops didn’t do anything to the kids and sent them on their way, but the news article stayed and never updated to reflect it was not a school shooting. The GVA included this incident in their numbers as a ‘school shooting’.

The GVA data is biased no matter what they claim, their numbers are very much falsely over inflated and wrong. Any researcher who would trust the GVA data enough to included it in a study, is a fool.

I especially liked the ones the GVA counted as ‘mass shooting’ they were called out on in the past where no mass shooting happened and there were no victim bodies – being in the field of physics myself I especially got a big laugh out of them. And their response was basically ‘well, an AR-15 bullet completely vaporizes the victim so that’s why there are no bodies of the victims and no traces of victims, clothing, blood, bone, dna, all gone completely vaporized’ in trying to explain why they counted as mass shooting when there were no victims (and in some of these pointed out there wasn’t even a gun and no shots at all, someone heard a loud noise and thought it was gun shots and they reported to media that someone was shooting). Its impossible, a violation of the laws of physics, for a bullet from an AR-15 to vaporize a human body so completely as to leave no trace one ever existed as such a bullet simply does not have the energy need to do such. To so completely vaporize a human body like that would take a lot of energy. To give you and idea of the amount of energy such a bullet would need to impart on the whole of a human body on impact to so completely vaporize it, using the size and mass of a .223/5.56 round, if such a bullet with enough energy to so completely vaporize the human body were fired the very first one fired that impacted anything at all that impact energy for that size bullet and its mass, that energy would have obliterated planet earth and you would not have been here to publish this very biased and wrong ‘study’ in fact none of us would be here today. And that’s why their excuse made me laugh, because I knew already it was impossible and they were lying.

Must be because of all those people running around in the woods with deer rifles.

Guns are the leading danger.

I have seen some retarded levels of delusion to tie various things to gang violence (and deny it is gang violence) but unless we are talking about hunters stumbling into cartel grow operations how is there any relevant connection?

Really? A reason? You already gave the reason, you admitted it yourself with “Data from GVA have been shown to have a bias toward incidents that receive more media attention…”

There’s your reason, you started with biased data

So lets see:

Its because it doesn’t happen. The ‘hunting increases gun violence’ angle, ya think that has not been tried before using GVA information?

There are literally hundreds of ‘shooting’ entries in the GVA database that happened around and during ‘the first week of deer season’ that never happened. The GVA pulls data from media sources and rarely actually vets them for accuracy, and it turns out the story they pulled it from was wrong to begin with and ‘mis-reported’.

Heck, there are shootings in the GVA that never happened. But because a media article said it did it went into the GVA and the media wrongly reported it as a shooting because someone said they ‘herd a loud bang’ or something else and thought it was gun shots and called the cops. The media picked up on it and reported it because the police responded to investigate and the next thing you know a headline “Police respond to mass shooting at…” or some other non-sense, but what they did not report was the conclusion of the police response with “hey, it was a truck backfire. There was no shooting.” or something similar. But that didn’t stop the GVA from putting it in the ‘mass shooting’ numbers. There are hundreds of incorrcet entries in the GVA.

Yes, your GVA data source is leading to bias in your results. But it seems you are happy with that bias because ya want to twist it around so that if anyone challenges your results the burden is on them to give “a reason why the data would be more or less reliable in the first week of deer season relative to the week before deer season” which seems an awful lot like you trying to justify your biased results as valid.