There have been 74 shootings at American Schools since Newtown

Bizarro Fletch wrote:

And police officers are allowed to carry guns in schools or stadiums, so there aren't really any gun free zones by Bee logic.  

He's been crying about gun free zones this entire thread and then ends up making himself look foolish with his own logic.

Can we move this thread now? I think all that's going to be said has been said.

Rook wrote:Wut?  You may need to explain that.

What part?

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

You're stupid.

Says the dumbass who thinks that cops aren't allowed to have guns at schools.

Mentalstate wrote:

Growing up around gun nuts and responsible gun owners, the easiest way to spot which was which was by which one had the small penis syndrome. You know, jacked-up truck, overly loud and right about everything, and prone to saying shit like "I'll kick your fucking ass" or "You guys would suddenly just wave a white flag." They are/were experts at regurgitating the same old arguments and tired "clever" sayings, like "if you are so against guns you should probably put a sign outside of your house saying it is a gun free home." And, of course, their very being was defined by the guns they owned, they talked about their guns all the time and they loved to have other people see their guns.

Meanwhile Responsible gun owners only talked about their guns with other gun owners or when asked, kept their guns safely locked in gun cabinets, enjoyed their guns and took great care of them while never being obsessed with them, and had real lives and identities that had nothing to do with owning guns.

You just described the poster tTy to a tee.

Either way... who gives a **** if someone loves guns... hates guns... or is indifferent. It's an ad hominem.

Lack of mental health care is an issue, but if you think its easy to lock someone up for something they haven't done. but just might do. You're kidding yourself. If they are committed its typically for a short stay and there isn't much of a mental health police force around to monitor them once released.

This is as good as anyplace for this.

Fucking vacuums.

http://www.cm-life.com/2014/06/10/cmu-community-reacts-to-professor-lees-arrest-shooting-charge/

Robert J Sakimano wrote:has any gun nut said that school shootings are tragic yet? without caveat, nuance or some sort of other gradation?

It's the anti-gun nuts that have to qualify these tragedies with caveat or nuance...they have to find a way to distort the narrative to fit their political agenda, rather than being honest and talking about the real root cause - the person committing the act and that person's mental health status.

WBill wrote:Lack of mental health care is an issue, but if you think its easy to lock someone up for something they haven't done. but just might do. You're kidding yourself. If they are committed its typically for a short stay and there isn't much of a mental health police force around to monitor them once released.

Well, you're creating this logical structure that requires there to only be 1 solution - police of the mental health and locking up people who may do something like this.

That being said you bring up a good point...Mental health development and care is not an easy thing to solve or set up. Really, it needs to be comprehensive and a part of the society's fabric...not just something that you go and get help for when needed. It's a completely different type of medical treatment than our traditional medical health care system.

However, we know the root cause of these types of tragedies are mental health related, and that is where the real discussion needs to take place. The nuts who blame the gun are pushing an anti-science point of view that is founded in their ideological dogma. I think we've seen how the anti-science movement can have an injurious impact on the development of a society.

WCS wrote:

It's the anti-gun nuts that have to qualify these tragedies with caveat or nuance...they have to find a way to distort the narrative to fit their political agenda, rather than being honest and talking about the real root cause - the person committing the act and that person's mental health status.

That is such a cop-out argument. You're not allowed to be concerned about anyone's safety without pushing a personal agenda? Give me a break

WCS wrote:

However, we know the root cause of these types of tragedies are mental health related, and that is where the real discussion needs to take place. The nuts who blame the gun are pushing an anti-science point of view that is founded in their ideological dogma. I think we've seen how the anti-science movement can have an injurious impact on the development of a society.

It's partly that but a lot of it stems from the need to dominate others. When one group of individuals feels they can succeed in forcing another group of individuals to act how they want them to act (in theory), to only be able to possess what the one group feels they should be able to possess... they satisfy that insecurity that is harbored.

It's no coincidence that with nearly every position you can take... the Democrat will ALWAYS take the same position every other Democrat takes, and the Republican will ALWAYS take the same position every other Republican takes. It's their best chance at playing some role in dominating others. It's very simple, ape math.

Which fits right in with your last point... it's not about being safer or any of the other things claimed it to be for... it's satisfying that urge to dominate... and the only facts that matter are the facts that support that position used to do so.

This is why in a democracy (or representative Republic)... governments will always end up with a tyranny of those in power over those not in power. Psychology of the chimps... we're not as advanced as we think.

Matt Trannon plays football

Punisher98 wrote:

That is such a cop-out argument. You're not allowed to be concerned about anyone's safety without pushing a personal agenda? Give me a break

It's not a cop out if that "concern about anyone's safety" turns into using force and threat of violence to affect everyone else's liberties. The personal agenda is affecting other people's lives... not the "concern about one's safety".

Bizarro Fletch wrote:

You're right, my assertion of 20 times was inaccurate.  Here are the gun related homicide rates per 100,000 residents for a sampling of countries I would hope we could agree are "civilized countries":

Japan: .00
United Kingdom: .04
Australia: .13
Spain: .15
Sweden: .19
Netherlands: .20
Germany: .20
France: .22
Italy: .36
Canada: .50
United States: 3.6

Source

Conceding our firearm murder rate is not 20 times higher, is it acceptable that it is this out of whack compared to these other countries?  Maybe it is for some people.  In fact, the lack of action indicates many people are just fine with it.  Or, more likely, completely ignorant of it.

There is only one thing to do. Impeach Obama. It's all his fault.

Mentalstate wrote:

So then, there haven't been 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook?

I'm saying there haven't been 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook.

School Shootings Claim Debunked

Even CNN questions this nonsense

The quote I saw was 74 gun related incidents at schools since Sandy Hook. Not shootings. So maybe it's being misinterpreted.

Rocinante wrote:The quote I saw was 74 gun related incidents at schools since Sandy Hook.  Not shootings.  So maybe it's being misinterpreted.  

Right. But people hear that and think mass shooting, ala Virginia Tech.

Gangs, drugs, suicides, accidents - they're all getting included in that number if they happened on the same block as a school. Not exactly the same thing.

Rocinante wrote:The quote I saw was 74 gun related incidents at schools since Sandy Hook.  Not shootings.  So maybe it's being misinterpreted.  

The mainstream media misinterpreted something? Tell me it isn't so.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

The mainstream media misinterpreted something? Tell me it isn't so.

You mean the LAMEstream media, amirite!?!?

ha.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

The mainstream media misinterpreted something? Tell me it isn't so.

It was Mayor Bloomberg and his gun control PAC that released the stats. The media just seized on it and passed it along.

TravelinMan wrote:

It was Mayor Bloomberg and his gun control PAC that released the stats.  The media just seized on it and passed it along.

They assumed most media, social network and tweet posters would be lazy enough to jump on the big number and run with it. They were right so they accomplished their goal, lying to do that means nothing to them.

TravelinMan wrote:

It was Mayor Bloomberg and his gun control PAC that released the stats.  The media just seized on it and passed it along.

They passed it along without checking it out to make sure as to whether or not it was factual. At the very least that makes them complicit.

WCS wrote:

Well, you're creating this logical structure that requires there to only be 1 solution - police of the mental health and locking up people who may do something like this.

That being said you bring up a good point...Mental health development and care is not an easy thing to solve or set up. Really, it needs to be comprehensive and a part of the society's fabric...not just something that you go and get help for when needed. It's a completely different type of medical treatment than our traditional medical health care system.

However, we know the root cause of these types of tragedies are mental health related, and that is where the real discussion needs to take place. The nuts who blame the gun are pushing an anti-science point of view that is founded in their ideological dogma. I think we've seen how the anti-science movement can have an injurious impact on the development of a society.

Dare I ask WTF "science" you are talking about?

To me it is about basic logic. Do I feel safer walking down the street with everyone carrying guns or without? And I am not a democrat or republican and could care less about any kind of political argument along those lines.

I do sympathize with gun owners that otherwise deserve that right. But just look at the result and the pro-gun argument is completely illogical. I don't care if it is 97 deaths or 37 deaths it is way too many. Throw in the accidental deaths and the numbers are staggering. Sure the problem might be more mental health at the root cause but you aren't going to solve that very easily. Lock up all the questionable characters? What about the guy that doesn't have a diagnosed mental illness that suddenly snapped? Is there some kind of mental illness physical I am required to regulalry take because I have never had one. I have been drinking and posting on message boards I could be unstable.

So if a "responsible gun-owner" was willing to give up his gun to save X number of lives in return for the infantile small chance that he could use that gun for protection I would think he should consider putting aside his selfish and/or political agenda for the greater good.

I do wonder about any pro-gun advocates that had kids at these schools where shootings occurred. I bet they feel a bit different about that gun access now. But hey, it wasn't my kids and it happened somewhere else so I guess I can pretend it didn't happen.

Herbie Green wrote:

Dare I ask WTF "science" you are talking about?

To me it is about basic logic.  Do I feel safer walking down the street with everyone carrying guns or without?  And I am not a democrat or republican and could care less about any kind of political argument along those lines.

I do sympathize with gun owners that otherwise deserve that right.  But just look at the result and the pro-gun argument is completely illogical.  I don't care if it is 97 deaths or 37 deaths it is way too many.  Throw in the accidental deaths and the numbers are staggering.  Sure the problem might be more mental health at the root cause but you aren't going to solve that very easily.  Lock up all the questionable characters?  What about the guy that doesn't have a diagnosed mental illness that suddenly snapped?  Is there some kind of mental illness physical I am required to regulalry take because I have never had one.  I have been drinking and posting on message boards I could be unstable.

So if a "responsible gun-owner" was willing to give up his gun to save X number of lives in return for the infantile small chance that he could use that gun for protection I would think he should consider putting aside his selfish and/or political agenda for the greater good.

I do wonder about any pro-gun advocates that had kids at these schools where shootings occurred.  I bet they feel a bit different about that gun access now.  But hey, it wasn't my kids and it happened somewhere else so I guess I can pretend it didn't happen.

Excellent post Like-1

Herbie Green wrote:

So if a "responsible gun-owner" was willing to give up his gun to save X number of lives in return for the infantile small chance that he could use that gun for protection I would think he should consider putting aside his selfish and/or political agenda for the greater good.

I'm not willing to allow an entity that claims a monopoly on force and violence more control and domination, eliminating my sovereignty, so that you can feel "safer". Secondly, say I am someone who likes to carry a gun with him for protection... why do I need to stop doing something that didn't affect you but made me feel safer, so that you can feel safer? What is it about you feeling safe that supersedes my need to feel safe?

That's adversarial to the concept of freedom/liberty and adversarial to my sovereignty.

Herbie Green wrote:

I do sympathize with gun owners that otherwise deserve that right.

Please elaborate. Who gives you authority to determine what rights someone else "deserves"?

Herbie Green wrote:
Dare I ask WTF "science" you are talking about?

To me it is about basic logic.  Do I feel safer walking down the street with everyone carrying guns or without?  And I am not a democrat or republican and could care less about any kind of political argument along those lines.

Do you think along the same lines of logic and science when you get in your vehicle every day? When you load your kids up?

There are 9-12,000 gun homicides per year right now in the US. One could argue that because politicians won't vote for a ban and confiscation of firearms they're causing those deaths. Why won't they? Of course it's political pressure from those that support the right to own a gun. So those looking for someone to blame for those deaths blame the pro-gun forces.\

There are 32-35,000 deaths per year in vehicle accidents in the US. Science and data support the fact that if you're riding in a small vehicle you're much more likely to die in an accident. I've seen articles that place that increased likelihood all over the map but what consensus there is seems to be around 4X as likely to die. It was political pressure from greens that brought about the original CAFE standards and it's been continuing political pressure that has caused them to be ratcheted up over the years. Basically automakers were forced to sell small cars by political pressure. Do you blame the greens/environmentalists for those additional deaths? If not, why not?

xsanguine wrote:

I'm not willing to allow an entity that claims a monopoly on force and violence more control and domination, eliminating my sovereignty, so that you can feel "safer". Secondly, say I am someone who likes to carry a gun with him for protection... why do I need to stop doing something that didn't affect you but made me feel safer, so that you can feel safer? What is it about you feeling safe that supersedes my need to feel safe?

That's adversarial to the concept of freedom/liberty and adversarial to my sovereignty.

Safer is not in itallics for me. The numbers overwhelmingly support that.

Perhaps I would "feel" safer myself carrying a gun. I have considered it locked up in my house but decided against it. But in the grand scheme of things it comes down to basic logic - more guns equals more shootings. It is actually impossible to argue otherwise. Well, for you and me and all those other guys that are responsible we should get those guns though. But what about all those other people?

xsanguine wrote:

Please elaborate. Who gives you authority to determine what rights someone else "deserves"?

I don't have any authority. I am just some guy on a message board with an opinion.

I know plenty of responsible gun owners and hunters and I sympathize with their want for that right. Perhaps there is some number of school shooting deaths and accidental deaths, murders that is acceptable to allow them to hunt with semi-automatics and/or to live out their fantasy that they are one day going to be a hero by gunning down an intruder. I don't hunt or own guns so for me that number is very small.

Herbie Green wrote:

Safer is not in itallics for me.  The numbers overwhelmingly support that.

Perhaps I would "feel" safer myself carrying a gun.  I have considered it locked up in my house but decided against it.  But in the grand scheme of things it comes down to basic logic - more guns equals more shootings.  It is actually impossible to argue otherwise.  Well, for you and me and all those other guys that are responsible we should get those guns though.  But what about all those other people?

But here's the thing, you're asking me to change something for the sake of your version of feeling safe... even if I've done absolutely nothing wrong. In actuality, you're not asking me, not giving me the choice whether or not to meet your wishes... you're proposing having the government use force and violence along with the threat of enslavement in order to get me and others to operate in the manner that you wish for them to operate... even if they haven't committed a crime or done anything wrong. The threat of enslavement turns into actual enslavement by force when I decide that you shouldn't be able to determine my sovereignty as simply another human being. And, using force and violence against another individual except in the case of self-defense is immoral and unethical.

Herbie Green wrote:

I don't have any authority.  I am just some guy on a message board with an opinion.

I know plenty of responsible gun owners and hunters and I sympathize with their want for that right.  Perhaps there is some number of school shooting deaths and accidental deaths, murders that is acceptable to allow them to hunt with semi-automatics and/or to live out their fantasy that they are one day going to be a hero by gunning down an intruder.  I don't hunt or own guns so for me that number is very small.

Heh... the number of school shooting deaths and accidental deaths has nothing to do with the individual that exercises their natural right to own and possess a gun.... a hatchet.. a screwdriver, anything. Why are you pinning deaths on people that have nothing to do with those incidents? I don't own any guns and never have, either. That shouldn't really matter, though.

Whether they want to shoot targets in their backyard, carry a handgun in a holster under their jacket, masturbate on their favorite firearm, or leave them locked up in their basement never to see the light of day.... the point is, why do you get to assume authority over another human being's sovereignty?

It's a fucking tragedy, and the fact that school shootings are no longer even remotely surprising is deeply disturbing.

The "shootings only happen in gun-free zones" is a bullshit argument. We are the ONLY developed country that has this problem, but we're far from the only country that outlaws firearms on school property.

We've got a culture that glorifies firearms, and a gun lobby that has made it absurdly easy to obtain them. Unless we fix those two things, kids are going to continue to die, jackasses like LWS are going to continue to make light of the situation, and we're all going to keep arguing in circles.

Gob Bluth wrote:It's a fucking tragedy, and the fact that school shootings are no longer even remotely surprising is deeply disturbing.

The "shootings only happen in gun-free zones" is a bullshit argument. We are the ONLY developed country that has this problem, but we're far from the only country that outlaws firearms on school property.

We've got a culture that glorifies firearms, and a gun lobby that has made it absurdly easy to obtain them. Unless we fix those two things, kids are going to continue to die, jackasses like LWS are going to continue to make light of the situation, and we're all going to keep arguing in circles.

We live in a 24 hour news cycle era with instant internet access... nothing is remotely surprising anymore, not just "school shootings". It's a desensitizing effect not because our gun crimes are out of control. Living in that 24 hour news cycle, you wouldn't even know that we're experiencing the lowest frequency of gun crime since 1993 despite the highest frequency of gun ownership per capita because every tragedy is marketed heavily by these corporate media whores in order to sell higher and higher prices in ad space. Fear sells.

The rest is an appeal to emotion, so I'll let it stand for what it is.

[quote="xsanguine"]

I'm not sure if the right number is 74 or 34 on this school shooting number, but for me it is about 1 school shooting before I think maybe the government should make laws to protect its' citizens. There must be some limit to which you think the sovereignty of others should be limited when expressing that freedom puts other citizens in danger. Should people be allowed to bring guns into Spartan Stadium? Walk down the street with a machine gun? Should they be allowed to make nuclear bombs in their basements? Wouldn't that hurt MY freedom if I had a 50% chance of getting killed walking down the street? But who are we to tell others what to do right?

Heck, I am about as "get the government out of my life" as you could get but even I draw the line somewhere. I guess people walking into schools and randomly killing kids is where I draw it.

Herbie Green wrote:Heck, I am about as "get the government out of my life" as you could get but even I draw the line somewhere. I guess people walking into schools and randomly killing kids is where I draw it.

I'm not sure what your red herring has to do with my owning a firearm.

People randomly walking into schools and randomly killing kids is a crime that is already against the law.

The school system in the US consists of about 100,000 schools and 50,000,000 students. After breaking down the numbers, it appears that there have been 14 homicides with guns where an adult or student has enter the school and opened fire on classmates. That is 1 death per every 3.3 million students in incidents spanning over a year. Anyone care to calculate the student gun-death in school shootings rate?

Big Ten Referee wrote:The school system in the US consists of about 100,000 schools and 50,000,000 students. After breaking down the numbers, it appears that there have been 14 homicides with guns where an adult or student has enter the school and opened fire on classmates. That is 1 death per every 3.3 million students in incidents spanning over a year. Anyone care to calculate the student gun-death in school shootings rate?

That is about the number of people that die from terrorist attacks each year yet we have spent a trillion dollars fighting a war on terror that has included taking away our personal liberties.

And the school shootings are just a part of the problem. Sure the headlines draw attention to the general issue of guns. Perhaps the media shouldn't report them because the deaths of those particular children are "statistically insignificant".

Gob Bluth wrote:It's a fucking tragedy, and the fact that school shootings are no longer even remotely surprising is deeply disturbing.

The "shootings only happen in gun-free zones" is a bullshit argument. We are the ONLY developed country that has this problem, but we're far from the only country that outlaws firearms on school property.

We've got a culture that glorifies firearms, and a gun lobby that has made it absurdly easy to obtain them. Unless we fix those two things, kids are going to continue to die, jackasses like LWS are going to continue to make light of the situation, and we're all going to keep arguing in circles.

emotion and dogma...personal attacks...straw man argument.

the elimination of firearms from the planet through genie wouldn't stop kids from dying on campuses. the leading cause of student deaths is suicide. What do suicide and firearm related crimes have in common? the root cause is mental health. If you were using the same line of logic you would want rope, blades, and bridges banned because those are the utensils used to end the life. Utensils don't kill...the people using those utensils kill.

I wish leftists were true people of science...if they were, time wouldn't be wasted by the leftists who create emotion based arguments. there would be no argument...we'd be working on a root cause solution instead.

WCS wrote:

It's the anti-gun nuts that have to qualify these tragedies with caveat or nuance...they have to find a way to distort the narrative to fit their political agenda, rather than being honest and talking about the real root cause - the person committing the act and that person's mental health status.

So the reason every other developed country on Earth has significantly lower gun violence rates than the US isn't because they have less guns?