As you mentioned, 90% of mass shootings take place outside of gun free zones. The original claim was that the "vast majority of shootings occur in gun free zones". 10% is not 'the vast majority of shootings'.
I don't disagree with you that certain news organizations do their best to give the false impression that shootings are more common in gun free zones though. It's typically the same ones concerned about the 'War on Christmas' . . . in a 75% Christian nation.
I'm talking about mainstream media - though I agree that the type of media outlets you reference are more likely to emphasize the "gun free zone". If you define "gun free zone" as areas where ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry and ignore shootings that occur at a private residence, it's easily plausible that the majority mass shootings in public places occur in gun free zones.
By the same token, if we defined "gun free zone" as areas where there no guns are present, then 0% of shootings occur in gun free zones. Arbitrarily ignoring the location of the majority of shootings when picking your stats doesn't make any sense at all.
There's also a difference between arguing that something is possible and arguing that it's true. Even after arbitrarily excluding the majority of shootings from your data set, there still haven't been any statistics or facts provided that indicate that the majority of shootings in non-private residences occur in gun free zones. To the contrary, only about a third of the shootings in your (again, inexplicably ignoring the majority of shootings) dataset are shown to be gun free zones. This still doesn't constitute a majority.
It's not arbitrary to exclude private homes.
Yes, actually . . . the way that you have done it is completely arbitrary.
Your article stated that 54% of cases were family or domestic violence and 63% were in private homes. Assuming that all the domestic cases were in private homes, 11% of cases were home invasions (about as many as were in your definition of gun free zone).
This is an assumption made arbitrarily without evidence. The article mentions 'domestic or family violence', you're assuming that it says 'domestic violence' only.
So someone who doesn't feel that their family relations are threatening those 54% of cases aren't relevant.
This is an invalid conclusions from the data provided. What evidence do you have that every instance of family gun violence happens in the home?
Shootings in public places also get much more media attention than shootings in private homes. If anything your article supports the notion that domestic violence is a much bigger problem than gun violence.
More invalid conclusions from the invalid assumptions made. Domestic violence and familial violence are related, but to assume that all familial violence happens at home is not supported by data. (But yes, there's certainly an indication of problems with familial violence.)
As I stated in each of my posts, I am not using your article's definition of gun free zone.
Yes, this has been mentioned several times.
I think of gun free zone as any place where a citizen who is allowed to carry a gun in other public places is not allowed to carry a gun. I feel that this definition is the most useful to someone who views a gun as a means of personal defense.
Right. There can be plenty of guns in your definition of a "gun free zone" (as is the case with a police station).
There exists a problem here. If (as you've stated) you assume that more people with guns makes things safer, then an area protected by trained people with guns should be safer than a place where guns are not allowed to be carried by anyone. This data should therefore be excluded from your 'gun free zone' analysis. If this data increases the number of folks killed, then it indicates a problem with your initial assumption. Apparently trained people with guns
do not make things safer. Unless your argument is that relatively untrained people with guns (your average citizen) are safer when armed than experienced and trained people with guns (like police officers).
Your article indicates that at least 27% of shootings in public places occur in such places
Agreed. 10% of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones.
"Only ten percent of incidents took place in “gun-free zones”, or areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms and there is not a regular armed law enforcement presence (armed security guards, for example). The vast majority of incidents—63 percent—took place entirely in private homes."
Therefore 37% of incidents occurred in public. If you assume that all of the gun free zones are in public, then 27% of shootings occur in gun free zones.
but does not provide adequate information about the other 73% of the public places where shootings occur to eliminate them as gun free zones under the definition that I accept.
Agreed.
Based on the most widely circulated media stories, it's easy to think that at least 1/3 of these other cases were in places where my definition of gun free zone applies. Of the many shootings I've seen reported I can think of a few shootings that were confirmed to not be in a gun free zone under my definition (college campuses) but many more that were gun free zone (bar, state office building, many schools). There are also many where the gun free status is uncertain (many businesses and churches).
The plural of anecdote is not data. This assumption is unsupported by fact or data so far brought forth.
You have personally redefined what 'gun free zone' means, and then failed to find any data supporting your new definition, which is why it's difficult to agree with your conclusions.