Can you each share data to refute the claim that mass shootings are increasing in frequency? I've included information and links in the OP from which I generated my initial claim.

The only refutation I can seem to find online is the argument that the data hasn't been applied to the increase of population and therefore examined on a per-capita basis, which admittedly, isn't a very convincing argument to me.

its a blatant violation of 1A rights.


'Saying a name equals causing harm' is a big stretch. Hes not beetlejuice.

this shit supreme court case didnt even go nearly as far as you want:


This was later overturned to an even tougher inciting 'Imminent lawless action' requirement in the Brandenburg case.

there is no clear and present danger etc saying a murderer's name on the news.


wrong.gif


>fantasies and caricatures over intellect and knowledge

falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is easily opposed on libertarian grounds, its a violation of property rights

this goes over the SC cases re: "fire" in a more thorough manner

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/



some examples:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678

A good reference.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

The clear and present danger is the increased frequency of mass shootings. It isnt a stretch when there is a sound theory with evidence backing it. You haven't refuted the theory/evidence at all. You dislike where the logical conclusion ends so now your amygdala is taking over. You're not an idiot, just try and remove your emotions from this. What is so unreasonable about 72 hours? Would you feel less strongly about 48, 24, 12 hours? I suspect it is any restriction at all. This is the same logic behind shouting fire, we have access to data now that we didn't before.

/edit reading the links now they wernt posted before

This post was edited by nobrow on Nov 5 2017 08:34pm

here's awesome data about mass shootings;

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/index.html

This is the most accurate one Ive seen so far

wrong. saying a shooters name is not at all a clear and present danger, let alone inciting imminent lawless action.


there is no sound theory backing a 72 hour ban on reporting news
there is not even a sound theory that mass shootings have in fact skyrocketed, let alone the early release of the killers' names being the cause.


slimey fantasies about me instead of considering that i might be correct /10


yeah only temporary authoritarian restrictions on speech. common sense press control. the founders could not have imagined anything other than a quill and ink.
just a shorter bit of ridiculous censorship threatening to punish people for news is totally reasonable.
thats like the middle ground right? only some sort of far-right radical would be against that.


still wrong


yeah, probably a good idea to educate yourself before spouting off nonsense about other people huh?

Mother Jones information is in the OP I posted, and they've also concluded that mass shootings are on the rise, citing their own analysis and a study by Harvard Public Health (also cited in OP) and a study by the FBI.