Santa Fe School Shooting.

What would incentivize me to register any gun I had then? Why not turn all my guns in and buy guns on a black market and not register them?

Cameron wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:I'll guarantee you if there was a vote to allow a government sweep to confiscate every unregistered firearm in this country via a home check, the NRA would oppose it. If you have legally registered guns your fine. Just trying to get as many illegal guns off the street as possible. They'd still oppose it. That's how sick they are.

But a sweep to get rid of illegal immigrants. Hell yeah.

I would oppose the shit out of that, but I like my fourth amendment rights...

The way I see it, Pandora is out of the box. The gun manufacturers have succeeded in getting too many guns into circulation to ever get rid of. The NRA and their ilk like to say responsible gun owners are not the problem. Let's take them at their word. Let's introduce legislation to put stiffer penalties in place for owning/possessing unregistered firearms, and let's also make it so that if a firearm that is registered in your name is used in a crime, you are guilty of that crime as well and get exactly the same penalty as the perpetrator. Call it the Responsible Gun Owner Act or some shit.

Just give people incentive to lock their shit up. It wouldn't stop gun violence completely (that's obviously impossible), but it should help.

I'm onboard if applied to all items. Guns, Cars, Boats, knives, pressure cookers, pipes - if something you own is used in a crime off to prison you go.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I would oppose the shit out of that, but I like my fourth amendment rights...

The way I see it, Pandora is out of the box. The gun manufacturers have succeeded in getting too many guns into circulation to ever get rid of. The NRA and their ilk like to say responsible gun owners are not the problem. Let's take them at their word. Let's introduce legislation to put stiffer penalties in place for owning/possessing unregistered firearms, and let's also make it so that if a firearm that is registered in your name is used in a crime, you are guilty of that crime as well and get exactly the same penalty as the perpetrator. Call it the Responsible Gun Owner Act or some shit.

Just give people incentive to lock their shit up. It wouldn't stop gun violence completely (that's obviously impossible), but it should help.

I'm onboard if applied to all items. Guns, Cars, Boats, knives, pressure cookers, pipes - if something you own is used in a crime off to prison you go.

Couldn’t you just say if it’s used in a mass killing with intent?

And yes if you give your car to a drunk who kills people, that’s intent.

I’m not registering my pressure cooker or pipes either.

kingstonlake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So no one could check them out and use them for a mass shooting? Doubt it.

+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that a kid arriving to check out a rifle and a shotgun on a day he's supposed to be in school would be a dead end for him.

You missed the part about keeping their guns at home.

An article from Vox - I see no mention of these gun repositories you reference, I must be missing it.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada

Switzerland
Gun ownership rate (2007): 45.7 guns per 100 people

Gun homicide rate (2012): 7.7 per 1 million people

How gun control works: Switzerland is perceived to have one of the more accepting cultures toward guns in Europe. Laws let militia members in the country (where all able-bodied men are required to serve in the military, except for conscientious objectors) keep their issued personal weapons in their homes, and Swiss statutes and traditions respect the right to bear arms.

But the country's restrictions are still somewhat more stringent than the US.

For one, automatic weapons are outright banned for civilians.

Private gun ownership generally requires a license, for which an applicant "must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger himself or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes," according to the Library of Congress's review of Swiss gun laws. The license is valid for six to nine months, and it's usually valid only for one weapon.

But rifles and semiautomatic long arms used by recreational hunters are exempt from licensing requirements.

The licensing requirement also only applies to dealers, with an exemption for private sellers. Still, the law requires private sellers to verify the identity and age of the buyer by checking an official identification document, and private sellers must have no reason to believe the buyer has been or should be disqualified from firearm ownership — requirements that aren't necessary for private gun sales under US federal law.

For anyone to carry a gun for defensive purposes, the licensing process requires the applicant to demonstrate the need to protect himself or others and pass an exam. But no carrying license is required for transporting an unloaded weapon for "legitimate purposes" like hunting and traveling to a shooting range, as long as the ammo is kept separate from the weapon. In comparison, the license to carry is a requirement that only exists in a minority of US states.

In recent years, Switzerland has reformed its gun laws for militia members after several incidents in which militia members killed themselves or others with their issued weapons. In 2010, for instance, rules were amended to let militia members voluntarily deposit their guns in an armory. And if police, courts, prosecutors, or a military commandant finds danger of abuse or improper handling or maintenance of a militia member's personal weapon, it can be confiscated — with the possibility of further punishments, including fines and imprisonment.

Switzerland's restrictions show that a country can have a culture that is broadly more receptive to the idea of gun ownership while maintaining some restrictions that make firearms less accessible to potentially dangerous people and improve public safety. But it's perhaps no coincidence that the country is second only to America among developed nations in terms of firearm homicide deaths — although the Swiss rate is still four times lower than the US's rate.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I'm onboard if applied to all items.   Guns, Cars, Boats, knives, pressure cookers, pipes - if something you own is used in a crime off to prison you go.

Couldn’t you just say if it’s used in a mass killing with intent?  

And yes if you give your car to a drunk who kills people, that’s intent.

Well we're coming to an agreement, though why limit it to mass killings?   One murder is one too many.

And if we're applying it equally it's not just loaning the car. If they steal the car, off to prison you go because you didn't lock your shit up.

LooseGoose wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that a kid arriving to check out a rifle and a shotgun on a day he's supposed to be in school would be a dead end for him.

You missed the part about keeping their guns at home.

An article from Vox - I see no mention of these gun repositories you reference, I must be missing it.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada

Switzerland
Gun ownership rate (2007): 45.7 guns per 100 people

Gun homicide rate (2012): 7.7 per 1 million people

How gun control works: Switzerland is perceived to have one of the more accepting cultures toward guns in Europe. Laws let militia members in the country (where all able-bodied men are required to serve in the military, except for conscientious objectors) keep their issued personal weapons in their homes, and Swiss statutes and traditions respect the right to bear arms.

But the country's restrictions are still somewhat more stringent than the US.

For one, automatic weapons are outright banned for civilians.

Private gun ownership generally requires a license, for which an applicant "must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger himself or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes," according to the Library of Congress's review of Swiss gun laws. The license is valid for six to nine months, and it's usually valid only for one weapon.

But rifles and semiautomatic long arms used by recreational hunters are exempt from licensing requirements.

The licensing requirement also only applies to dealers, with an exemption for private sellers. Still, the law requires private sellers to verify the identity and age of the buyer by checking an official identification document, and private sellers must have no reason to believe the buyer has been or should be disqualified from firearm ownership — requirements that aren't necessary for private gun sales under US federal law.

For anyone to carry a gun for defensive purposes, the licensing process requires the applicant to demonstrate the need to protect himself or others and pass an exam. But no carrying license is required for transporting an unloaded weapon for "legitimate purposes" like hunting and traveling to a shooting range, as long as the ammo is kept separate from the weapon. In comparison, the license to carry is a requirement that only exists in a minority of US states.

In recent years, Switzerland has reformed its gun laws for militia members after several incidents in which militia members killed themselves or others with their issued weapons. In 2010, for instance, rules were amended to let militia members voluntarily deposit their guns in an armory. And if police, courts, prosecutors, or a military commandant finds danger of abuse or improper handling or maintenance of a militia member's personal weapon, it can be confiscated — with the possibility of further punishments, including fines and imprisonment.

Switzerland's restrictions show that a country can have a culture that is broadly more receptive to the idea of gun ownership while maintaining some restrictions that make firearms less accessible to potentially dangerous people and improve public safety. But it's perhaps no coincidence that the country is second only to America among developed nations in terms of firearm homicide deaths — although the Swiss rate is still four times lower than the US's rate.

No I didn't.

kingstonlake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

You missed the part about keeping their guns at home.

An article from Vox - I see no mention of these gun repositories you reference, I must be missing it.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada

Switzerland
Gun ownership rate (2007): 45.7 guns per 100 people

Gun homicide rate (2012): 7.7 per 1 million people

How gun control works: Switzerland is perceived to have one of the more accepting cultures toward guns in Europe. Laws let militia members in the country (where all able-bodied men are required to serve in the military, except for conscientious objectors) keep their issued personal weapons in their homes, and Swiss statutes and traditions respect the right to bear arms.

But the country's restrictions are still somewhat more stringent than the US.

For one, automatic weapons are outright banned for civilians.

Private gun ownership generally requires a license, for which an applicant "must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger himself or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes," according to the Library of Congress's review of Swiss gun laws. The license is valid for six to nine months, and it's usually valid only for one weapon.

But rifles and semiautomatic long arms used by recreational hunters are exempt from licensing requirements.

The licensing requirement also only applies to dealers, with an exemption for private sellers. Still, the law requires private sellers to verify the identity and age of the buyer by checking an official identification document, and private sellers must have no reason to believe the buyer has been or should be disqualified from firearm ownership — requirements that aren't necessary for private gun sales under US federal law.

For anyone to carry a gun for defensive purposes, the licensing process requires the applicant to demonstrate the need to protect himself or others and pass an exam. But no carrying license is required for transporting an unloaded weapon for "legitimate purposes" like hunting and traveling to a shooting range, as long as the ammo is kept separate from the weapon. In comparison, the license to carry is a requirement that only exists in a minority of US states.

In recent years, Switzerland has reformed its gun laws for militia members after several incidents in which militia members killed themselves or others with their issued weapons. In 2010, for instance, rules were amended to let militia members voluntarily deposit their guns in an armory. And if police, courts, prosecutors, or a military commandant finds danger of abuse or improper handling or maintenance of a militia member's personal weapon, it can be confiscated — with the possibility of further punishments, including fines and imprisonment.

Switzerland's restrictions show that a country can have a culture that is broadly more receptive to the idea of gun ownership while maintaining some restrictions that make firearms less accessible to potentially dangerous people and improve public safety. But it's perhaps no coincidence that the country is second only to America among developed nations in terms of firearm homicide deaths — although the Swiss rate is still four times lower than the US's rate.

No I didn't.

OK, when you mentioned the kid arriving to check guns out on a school day. I doubt that would happen at home.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

Couldn’t you just say if it’s used in a mass killing with intent?  

And yes if you give your car to a drunk who kills people, that’s intent.

Well we're coming to an agreement, though why limit it to mass killings?   One murder is one too many.

And if we're applying it equally it's not just loaning the car. If they steal the car, off to prison you go because you didn't lock your shit up.

Nope, if it’s stolen a responsible owner reports. If you’re on vacation that is fine, you figure it out. That means, much like your car, know where the hell your guns are at all time. Too many to keep track of? Well, do something about it.

kingstonlake wrote:I'll guarantee you if there was a vote to allow a government sweep to confiscate every unregistered firearm in this country via a home check, the NRA would oppose it. If you have legally registered guns your fine. Just trying to get as many illegal guns off the street as possible. They'd still oppose it. That's how sick they are.

But a sweep to get rid of illegal immigrants. Hell yeah.

The NRA, the ACLU and every other honest civil rights organization in the US would oppose it would you consider each of them "sick" too? It's amazing how many Americans give up their 4th amendment rights so easily.

In addition to that I don't see what this accomplishes. Long guns are not registered. So you would be sweeping for handguns in the most part and long guns in the possession of felons.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Well we're coming to an agreement, though why limit it to mass killings?   One murder is one too many.

And if we're applying it equally it's not just loaning the car. If they steal the car, off to prison you go because you didn't lock your shit up.

Nope, if it’s stolen a responsible owner reports. If you’re on vacation that is fine, you figure it out. That means, much like your car, know where the hell your guns are at all time. Too many to keep track of? Well, do something about it.

OK, that's reasonable. If you report something stolen in time then you're off the hook. What if you're at work, they steal your shit and kill someone before you're home to know the spare car is missing?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:My favorite part is watching fine "pro-life" folks be so nonchalant about children getting murdered simply because it flies in the face of their sick political agenda and campaign donations.

Hysteria is much more productive.

Every part of all of this is so predictable it plays out every time.

Both sides blather away and none will budge to actually do something that will help.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:My favorite part is watching fine "pro-life" folks be so nonchalant about children getting murdered simply because it flies in the face of their sick political agenda and campaign donations.

I'd be proud of you if you posted something like this about the pro abortionists, but then again those are your allies. But you keep telling me how much you value all lives. 3,000 babies will die today, where's the main board thread about that?

LooseGoose wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:I'll guarantee you if there was a vote to allow a government sweep to confiscate every unregistered firearm in this country via a home check, the NRA would oppose it. If you have legally registered guns your fine. Just trying to get as many illegal guns off the street as possible. They'd still oppose it. That's how sick they are.

But a sweep to get rid of illegal immigrants. Hell yeah.

The NRA, the ACLU and every other honest civil rights organization in the US would oppose it would you consider each of them "sick" too?   It's amazing how many Americans give up their 4th amendment rights so easily.

In addition to that I don't see what this accomplishes.   Long guns are not registered.   So you would be sweeping for handguns in the most part and long guns in the possession of felons.

These amendments you cherish and hold as if it were your first born right from the womb are worthless garbage.  They've been bastardized, hedged, abused, and split haired to the point of irrelevancy.  They were wrote 250 years ago and haven't evolved like society has.  And to be honest any attempt at solving this issue is met with stiff resistance to the point of people saying that if "you want my gun registered then i want your pressure cooker registered."  It only illustrates how big a role they play in the problem.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Hysteria is much more productive.

Every part of all of this is so predictable it plays out every time.

Both sides blather away and none will budge to actually do something that will help.




I'd be proud of you if you posted something like this about the pro abortionists, but then again those are your allies. But you keep telling me how much you value all lives. 3,000 babies will die today, where's the main board thread about that?

feel free to start one, Mister Pro-Life, and you'll be very annoyed about how consistently pro-life I actually am.

lol, oh come now. We've all seen your anti NRA posts. Please link me to one anti Planned Parenthood post? Just one.

I'm pro death

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I would oppose the shit out of that, but I like my fourth amendment rights...

The way I see it, Pandora is out of the box. The gun manufacturers have succeeded in getting too many guns into circulation to ever get rid of. The NRA and their ilk like to say responsible gun owners are not the problem. Let's take them at their word. Let's introduce legislation to put stiffer penalties in place for owning/possessing unregistered firearms, and let's also make it so that if a firearm that is registered in your name is used in a crime, you are guilty of that crime as well and get exactly the same penalty as the perpetrator. Call it the Responsible Gun Owner Act or some shit.

Just give people incentive to lock their shit up. It wouldn't stop gun violence completely (that's obviously impossible), but it should help.

I'm onboard if applied to all items. Guns, Cars, Boats, knives, pressure cookers, pipes - if something you own is used in a crime off to prison you go.

Nothing screams sane and logical more than bringing up cars, boats, knives, pressure cookers, and pipes after school children get murdered via guns in a school. What a country we live in.

Nothing will be done about this until these attitudes fade, give it at least 30 years for the old folk in power to die off. Pathetic.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I'm onboard if applied to all items. Guns, Cars, Boats, knives, pressure cookers, pipes - if something you own is used in a crime off to prison you go.

Nothing screams sane and logical more than bringing up cars, boats, knives, pressure cookers, and pipes after school children get murdered via guns in a school. What a country we live in.

Nothing will be done about this until these attitudes fade, give it at least 30 years for the old folk in power to die off. Pathetic.

We were discussing mass killings in general, sorry you missed that. I don't segregate murders by weapon. A killing is a killing. The person is just as dead. The loss is just as real.

If a solution will work on guns why not apply it to everything? Shouldn't we work together to prevent all killings?

Y’alls generation will continue to deflect deflect deflect and see the dollar signs. I truly believe mine won’t. We will see.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Nothing screams sane and logical more than bringing up cars, boats, knives, pressure cookers, and pipes after school children get murdered via guns in a school. What a country we live in.

Nothing will be done about this until these attitudes fade, give it at least 30 years for the old folk in power to die off. Pathetic.

We were discussing mass killings in general, sorry you missed that. I don't segregate murders by weapon. A killing is a killing. The person is just as dead. The loss is just as real.

If a solution will work on guns why not apply it to everything? Shouldn't we work together to prevent all killings?

Goose this is so stupid and you know it. Every time you bring up auto accidents, or mass killings involving toasters, or violence in Chicago it is just so damn disingenuous.

Are you rational and sane and smart enough to admit that mass shootings are a repeated and increasingly common problem in this country? Yes or no.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Y’alls generation will continue to deflect deflect deflect and see the dollar signs. I truly believe mine won’t. We will see.

You just wait. The Backlash to all this sensitive touchy feely everybody is the same shit is gonna be awesome.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Y’alls generation will continue to deflect deflect deflect and see the dollar signs. I truly believe mine won’t. We will see.

You just wait. The Backlash to all this sensitive touchy feely everybody is the same shit is gonna be awesome.

You seem like one of those "another civil war is coming" type of guys.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

We were discussing mass killings in general, sorry you missed that. I don't segregate murders by weapon. A killing is a killing. The person is just as dead. The loss is just as real.

If a solution will work on guns why not apply it to everything? Shouldn't we work together to prevent all killings?

Goose this is so stupid and you know it. Every time you bring up auto accidents, or mass killings involving toasters, or violence in Chicago it is just so damn disingenuous.

Are you rational and sane and smart enough to admit that mass shootings are a repeated and increasingly common problem in this country? Yes or no.

There is no way Goose will acknowledge this question.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:



You just wait. The Backlash to all this sensitive touchy feely everybody is the same shit is gonna be awesome.

You seem like one of those "another civil war is coming" type of guys.

Yeah, definitely one of the macho man merican types that are fading out of society thankfully. Trying to stay relevant and talking about which guns are better for killing, in this very thread.

Next, he is going to start to blame shootings on trophies that 6 year olds receive after soccer games. Yawn.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:



You just wait. The Backlash to all this sensitive touchy feely everybody is the same shit is gonna be awesome.

You seem like one of those "another civil war is coming" type of guys.

Nah. I'm just saying if the hippies could give birth to the 80s that the Millennials will be able to pull something similar off to that.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

You seem like one of those "another civil war is coming" type of guys.

Yeah, definitely one of the macho man merican types that are fading out of society thankfully. Trying to stay relevant and talking about which guns are better for killing, in this very thread.

Next, he is going to start to blame shootings on trophies that 6 year olds receive after soccer games. Yawn.

The purpose of guns when you get right down to it is to kill things. Some of them are better at it than others. Of course .223 ammo will do quite nicely at 10 feet or so.

Murica. Fuck yeah. It's alive and well - just venture out of the big cities (and you don't have to go too far).

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

We were discussing mass killings in general, sorry you missed that. I don't segregate murders by weapon. A killing is a killing. The person is just as dead. The loss is just as real.

If a solution will work on guns why not apply it to everything? Shouldn't we work together to prevent all killings?

Goose this is so stupid and you know it. Every time you bring up auto accidents, or mass killings involving toasters, or violence in Chicago it is just so damn disingenuous.

Are you rational and sane and smart enough to admit that mass shootings are a repeated and increasingly common problem in this country? Yes or no.

Except that the facts say they aren't. The media glorification is more prevalent.

This isn't a "blog" or a "mainstream media" link - it's a scholarly study. Chock full of facts, not emotion and not media hype.

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

The deadly school shooting this month in Parkland, Florida, has ignited national outrage and calls for action on gun reform. But while certain policies may help decrease gun violence in general, it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings, according to James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern.

Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving 4 or more victims and at least 2 deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant.

Of these, 8 are mass shootings, or incidents involving 4 or more deaths, excluding the assailant.

“This is not an epidemic”

Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events. In research publishing later this year, Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel found that on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school


Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters.

Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.

There's a blurb going around about all the mass killings done with AR15's - it's not factual. It'll be repeated 100,000 times so people believe it though.

I'll answer your "car" stuff separately.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Goose this is so stupid and you know it. Every time you bring up auto accidents, or mass killings involving toasters, or violence in Chicago it is just so damn disingenuous.

See you think so but I don't and here's why. It's back to the old ox goring admonition. Everyone feels different when it might affect them. You don't own guns so you're all for heavy regulation no matter what justification you use. The subtle point being made by me is that OK, I'm fine with that as long as we put your ass on the line too. Do you argue that no vehicles have been used in mass killings? If so who's not being honest? So....follow along and tell me where this is unfair.

Example A: I'm at work. A kid steals a gun from my locked home. He kills 4 people with it. Based on the proposals I was responding to I should face life in prison for not properly securing my gun and not reporting it stolen.

Example B: You're at work. A kid steals your locked SUV from your driveway. He kills 4 people with it. Based on the proposals I was presenting you should face life in prison for not properly securing your SUV and not reporting it stolen.

What the hell is the difference? For me there is none, the entire concept is stupid.

For you it's great that I can go to prison because someone broke the law and stole my guns. Why is it great for you? Because not owning guns only one of us is in danger of being punished by a stupid law. My simple point is that if you want to pass unjust laws then make them apply to all of us. By including any lethal item you do that.

Another snippet from the article linked above:

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

We had this discussion the last time after Parkland...one thing that has changed since the early 90s? Now you have CNN AND Fox and MSNBC all desperate for ratings. I think the shootings will get more common as they make underground heroes out of these pieces of shit.

LooseGoose wrote:Another snippet from the article linked above:

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

We had this discussion the last time after Parkland...one thing that has changed since the early 90s? Now you have CNN AND Fox and MSNBC all desperate for ratings. I think the shootings will get more common as they make underground heroes out of these pieces of shit.

I think this is a solid point, these kids are desperate for attention and with the way things are covered these days it is easier and easier for them to see that this is one way to get it

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:There is nothing than can be done. Just move on.

I’m not even sure why these old ass fuckers that secretly hate America despite their big talk get all hot and bothered. Nothing is going to change until they die off and get out of the way so the culture can change. And then what do they care at that point. Until then thoughts and prayers otpt.

LooseGoose wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

Goose this is so stupid and you know it. Every time you bring up auto accidents, or mass killings involving toasters, or violence in Chicago it is just so damn disingenuous.

Are you rational and sane and smart enough to admit that mass shootings are a repeated and increasingly common problem in this country? Yes or no.

Except that the facts say they aren't.   The media glorification is more prevalent.  

This isn't a "blog" or a "mainstream media" link - it's a scholarly study.   Chock full of facts, not emotion and not media hype.

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

The deadly school shooting this month in Parkland, Florida, has ignited national outrage and calls for action on gun reform. But while certain policies may help decrease gun violence in general, it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings, according to James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern.

Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving 4 or more victims and at least 2 deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant.

Of these, 8 are mass shootings, or incidents involving 4 or more deaths, excluding the assailant.

“This is not an epidemic”

Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events. In research publishing later this year, Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel found that on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school


Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters.

Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.

There's a blurb going around about all the mass killings done with AR15's - it's not factual.   It'll be repeated 100,000 times so people believe it though.

I'll answer your "car" stuff separately.

That's a great article that selectively uses data that only includes school shootings with 4 or more deaths.

Here's the real data Goose. The number of mass shootings (shootings with 3 or more deaths) in the 90's, 2000's and 2000-2017

90's - 149 deaths average of 14.9 per year
2000's - 160 deaths Annette of 16 per year
2010-2017 - 370 deaths average of 46 per year.

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history