Another week, another school shooting

[smooth]

we're having a discussion about school shootings and a graph is posted demonstrating that the national average for school shootings are going down

ignoring, of course, that it doesn't include Sandy Hook, or anything past 2010 for that matter, which ended with 20 children dead, 6 adults, the shooter and his mother thereby damn near tripling the entire country's incidents in 2010 in a singular incident! why that is somehow counted as "success" is baffling to me, but speaks perhaps more to a depraved and sick mentality that permeates some of the people in this society who are "ok" with this kind of violence and death that our children are forced to endure in the name of politics.

in any case, so we're having this discussion about school shootings and I respond to the graph to point out that it's misleading to understand it as an accurate portrayal of school shooting trends across the country since it's an average.

for example, comparing the Sandy Hook incident to the latest Oregon shooting, even if there were just 3 more just like the Oregon incident (and in total less than a handful of deaths), we'd still have to discuss whether we are seeing an uptick of school shootings even though the total murders are lower than the singular Sandy Hook incident.

his response? well localities can implement their own policies.
that's a non-sequitor. Educate yourself on what that term means if you're still confused.



as to your question of what use mandating that private party sales were subject to the same background checks that gun stores had to adhere to, if you can't comprehend the answer on your own then no amount of explaining from me is going to help you understand any better. sorry I can't help you with rudimentary comprehension skills. hopefully someone else in the thread will take the time to explain how gun sales work.

[marshallnoise]

it's not gone over my head it's just a non-sequitor to the discussion so it's confusing why you bothered to mention it at all. What exactly is your point?

Which state are you living in that requires background checks for private party sales?

To what end would that help anything?

What exactly is the non sequitor in the discussion here?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

My point was that each state and many localities can make their own firearms regulations, and do so on a very regular basis. I am sorry this has gone over your head (again) and point of that was to show that if a state or locality wishes to further restrict firearms with in the bounds of the Constitution with in their Jurisdiction in response to a particular action or trend they are free to do so.




We have all this already so whats your point.

it's not gone over my head it's just a non-sequitor to the discussion so it's confusing why you bothered to mention it at all. What exactly is your point?

Which state are you living in that requires background checks for private party sales?

[mrsleeve]

My point was that each state and many localities can make their own firearms regulations, and do so on a very regular basis. I am sorry this has gone over your head (again) and point of that was to show that if a state or locality wishes to further restrict firearms with in the bounds of the Constitution with in their Jurisdiction in response to a particular action or trend they are free to do so.

as pretty much everyone on this board has posted ad nauseum most sane and rational people would be content to start with a simple background check

I'd add to that and argue for strict regulations about straw purchases and unregulated 3rd party sales

We have all this already so whats your point.


it is quite baffling when you have all the laws you wish to have in place that restrict LAW ABIDING citizens, yet does little to stop what those that already have no regard for the law form doing what they do..... Yes its quite baffling why you would want to continue that behavior and apply it too the rest of the nation, Yup thats sure to work out well. About as well as Chicago, DC, Philly, and Oakland

[smooth]

as pretty much everyone on this board has posted ad nauseum most sane and rational people would be content to start with a simple background check

I'd add to that and argue for strict regulations about straw purchases and unregulated 3rd party sales

[marshallnoise]

I don't understand your first point in context so I can't really respond to it. It certainly doesn't have any bearing on murder since the definition of murder and the punishment for murder is the same in all localities in the US.

As for your second question, if we take a place like Chicago for example, it turns out that while Chicago has very strict laws they don't extend into the suburbs. So if you are in the city it's very difficult to buy a gun, but if you go a few miles out from the city center you can buy dozens of guns during a single purchase and easily dump them back in the city.

Similar kinds of issues arise when considering other high gun crime areas like DC with strict laws but very close proximity to neighboring states with lax laws. Oregon, for example, is extremely loose with firearm regulation while California is tight. Guns easily flow across the border since we don't have metal detectors strung across the border.

I assume you are asking rhetorically and that you feel you make a huge point whenever you bring this up. I always have to repeat myself when in fact just sitting down and thinking things through for all of about 30 seconds should illustrate the problem you keep trying to ignore. quite baffling really

Ban more guns. That'll do it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

^

Hence why we have different laws in different states or even different neighborhoods. The locality issue is a moot point a best since each state has its own ability to regulate and enforce its own laws.


Why is it then where the most restrictive firearms laws in the country are in place, yet have the worst rates for gun crime then????

I don't understand your first point in context so I can't really respond to it. It certainly doesn't have any bearing on murder since the definition of murder and the punishment for murder is the same in all localities in the US.

As for your second question, if we take a place like Chicago for example, it turns out that while Chicago has very strict laws they don't extend into the suburbs. So if you are in the city it's very difficult to buy a gun, but if you go a few miles out from the city center you can buy dozens of guns during a single purchase and easily dump them back in the city.

Similar kinds of issues arise when considering other high gun crime areas like DC with strict laws but very close proximity to neighboring states with lax laws. Oregon, for example, is extremely loose with firearm regulation while California is tight. Guns easily flow across the border since we don't have metal detectors strung across the border. And of course, the latest school shooting was in Oregon. So kinda hard to hang one's hat on that one...

I assume you are asking rhetorically and that you feel you make a huge point whenever you bring this up. I always have to repeat myself when in fact just sitting down and thinking things through for all of about 30 seconds should illustrate the problem you keep trying to ignore. quite baffling really

[mrsleeve]

^

Hence why we have different laws in different states or even different neighborhoods. The locality issue is a moot point a best since each state has its own ability to regulate and enforce its own laws. Good try though.


Why is it then where the most restrictive firearms laws in the country are in place, yet have the worst rates for gun crime then????

[smooth]

that's a national average. as I've pointed out elsewhere, some of our cities have become dramatically safer than they were during the height of the crack epidemic, and some have become more dangerous than flipping a coin. so an average can start to downward trend while murders in certain locations can go much higher than they have been historically. compare the last time there was a school shooting in *Oregon* and then you would start to understand how this works. and then consider why Oregonians would be concerned...

regardless, also as I've pointed out elsewhere, our national average is particularly high compared to the pre 1950's crime spike and then it was extraordinarily high compared to other western democratic nations. now we're stratospherically higher relative to them.

what motivates you to get hung up on whether we have 34 youth murdered or 11 per year and that somehow only losing a dozen children to gun violence while they're on their way to school, away from it, or at it is somehow "success"?

[mrsleeve]

Stop giving these people the attention they crave in the media and this shit will all but go away.

Maybe the 24 news cycle need something else to talk about so its getting past regional news more so there is more national attention to such things than in the more recent past, to give the appearance these things might be on the rise ????? When in fact they are not

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/are-school-homicides-becoming-the-norm

Hrm...

[smooth]

If I counted his tweets right, that still means there 40 school shootings in the last 18 months. That's still a ton.

don't fall for their nonsense, for some odd reason the dispute is whether people going to a school to do a mass shooting is distinct from a person going on a campus and shooting another person and that the latter don't count as "school shootings."

the debate is not on whether we have an epidemic of mass shootings (although that's a valid question, as well). The concern is why are we experiencing an increase in gun related deaths and violence at schools, where our children have to stay during the day, and whether we should pay attention to that trend.

[ParsedOut]

...this is an exercise in stupidity.

/thread

[marshallnoise]

"truly horrific" and "more than 10" are both completely arbitrary merits you demand are met before you'll have a discussion.

I agree they are arbitrary. That is my personal threshold.

But what is important is that "74 school shootings" aren't really "74 school shootings." That isn't arbitrary. More than enough reasonable doubt has been cast upon the claim of "74 school shootings since Sandy Hook" that the debate should be tabled until some legitimate boundaries are set up for what defines a school shooting.

All this thread is doing is giving legitimacy to hysterics, my personal threshold of "more than 10" and "truly horrific" be damned.

Call me an asshole for not wanting to personally talk about it until that point, but until a real number surfaces...this is an exercise in stupidity.

[z31maniac]

Arbitrary? Someone's standards included 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook, which were so loose that it was easy to identify that almost half of them as being false.

In order to start a discussion about an "epidemic", the epidemic has to be verified. Claims that there is an "epidemic" should be more than posited and shown as legitimate.

All you have to do is Google "how many school shootings since sandy hook" and the search engine pulls up pages upon pages of news sites and blogs quoting the 74 figure.

False narratives are taken as fact and then repeated ad nauseum. How can you have a discussion when people don't really know what they are having a discussion about?

:ohsnap:

"truly horrific" and "more than 10" are both completely arbitrary merits you demand are met before you'll have a discussion.