No, CPRC didn't cherry pick the data, Everytown watered down the data. The question was to determine if declaring certain areas gun-free zones would deter shootings. Everytown applied shootings that didn't fit the parameters of the study. You have the right to reject sources that disagree with your opinion. I disagree with and reject your "sources."
I highly doubt that the fact that some areas have been declared gun free zones has spared a single life. If somebody is intent on committing mass murder and probably dying in the process they sure as hell are not going to be worried about being charged with possession of a firearm in a gun free zone.
Tell me how that works? If multiple people are shot in a gun-free zone, what difference does their motivation make, even if we knew? Hey, I reject sources that have been thoroughly and public discredited. It's got nothing to do with my opinion. My opinion are based on the best facts that I can find. I read the article, did not take it at face value (I never do), and did some checking. Turns out there is a long history of distorted and dishonest data coming from this source. I have learned long ago that the internet is filled with bogus claims that people don't bother to question or check out. If you want to run with CPRC data that has already been shot to pieces by fact-checkers, you can. I will be happy to point out the flaws. You have the right to expose any problems with sources I post (it sometimes happens). Feel free.
Did you read what I posted? The question was multiple shootings in gun free zones. The CPRC data reflected multiple shooting in gun free zones. The everytown data showed all multiple shootings, whether they were in gun free zones or not. Therefore, everytown's data did not fit the research. Discredited by who? People with a different agenda.
