Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Derec]

9 children, including 5-year-old, shot outside Ga. gas station

The victims range in age from 5 to 17.

www.wsbtv.com

Misleading headline. Seven teenagers, two children, would be more accurate.
It was some kind of dispute during a nearby party. Maybe gang related?
I wonder how the 5 year old is connected. Was he with the teens, or was he maybe with his parents getting gas and was shot accidentally?

Luckily the shooter(s) were bad shots and all of them survived, although "non-life threatening" does not necessarily mean not serious or life-altering.

 

[laughing dog]

9 children, including 5-year-old, shot outside Ga. gas station

The victims range in age from 5 to 17.

www.wsbtv.com

Misleading headline. Seven teenagers, two children, would be more accurate.
It was some kind of dispute during a nearby party. Maybe gang related?
I wonder how the 5 year old is connected. Was he with the teens, or was he maybe with his parents getting gas and was shot accidentally?

Luckily the shooter(s) were bad shots and all of them survived, although "non-life threatening" does not necessarily mean not serious or life-altering.

Teenagers are children.

 

[Derec]

Teenagers are children.

Not really. They are minors, but not children. 15-17 year olds are much closer developmentally to 18 year old adults than they are to 8 year old children. Lumping in a 17 year old almost adults with snot-nosed 5 year old preschoolers is crazy to me.
We've been over this already. It will not change no matter how often you and others repeat this falsehood.

Maybe "youths" (or "yutes") is the best word here.

 

[laughing dog]

Teenagers are children.

Not really. ...

Nope. Teenagers are considered children but most people. They are not adults, no matter how much you repeat your falsehood that they are not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you assume we have large numbers of innocent deaths? Most murders are criminal on criminal.

Why do you assume most murders are criminal on criminal?

Why do you stick your head so deep in the sand?

Hint: When innocents die it typically makes the news. The cases that make the news are a few percent of all the murders.

 

[Oleg]

Why do you assume we have large numbers of innocent deaths? Most murders are criminal on criminal.

Why do you assume most murders are criminal on criminal?

Why do you stick your head so deep in the sand?

Hint: When innocents die it typically makes the news. The cases that make the news are a few percent of all the murders.

But LD kinda has a point. Urban gun homicide offenders are usually poor marksmen; lots of collateral victims.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you assume we have large numbers of innocent deaths? Most murders are criminal on criminal.

Why do you assume most murders are criminal on criminal?

Why do you stick your head so deep in the sand?

Hint: When innocents die it typically makes the news. The cases that make the news are a few percent of all the murders.

Let me get this straight - you assume the media is Santa Claus because they know which victims are naughty and which are nice?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ultimately, this boils down to the central question around gun control: Do citizens have the right to own guns for their own protection against other citizens; Or is gun ownership a privilege reserved for responsible people, who have legitimate uses for these weapons that do not ever entail their use against humans?

As long as you pick the former over the latter, lots of people will die needlessly every single year.

Every developed nation in the world has picked the latter, except one; There's zero evidence to suggest that that one outlier has more liberty, less crime, or better public safety than the others - so empirically, that was a stupid mistake for that nation to make.

Basically, your nation has decided to kill large numbers of innocent people, in defence of a hypothetical benefit that cannot be demonstrated to exist at all. But lots of people both believe strongly in this hypothetical benefit, and care naught for the dead and wounded, so that's OK then.

The rest of the debate is just noise, intended to sweeten the bitter pill of realising that you have deliberately chosen an ideological position of pure faith that kills people, over the harmless and completely reasonable restrictions imposed in other countries to protect the public.

Why do you assume we have large numbers of innocent deaths? Most murders are criminal on criminal.

Because most (IMO all) criminals don't merit capital punishment.

I have not said the merit capital punishment. I just take the attitude that a lot of Americans do that the death of a criminal is a lot less important than the death of an innocent. Ideally nobody's harmed but that's not one of the available options no matter how much you wish it to be. This is the standard fallacy of the left--that the side with more power is automatically in the wrong for a bad outcome. That contains the hidden assumption that the weaker side is behaving rationally, that their objectives have been correctly evaluated (hint: Hamas likes Palestinian deaths and goes to considerable effort to cause them) and that they have correctly evaluated the situation. In situations where the lead flies the latter is rarely true.

Want to actually lower the death toll? Take the drug war out and shoot it.

Fuck you're callous. Every dead criminal is also a dead son or daughter. Many are dead brothers or sisters. Many are dead fathers and mothers. If you think that the poor decision to commit a crime is sufficient to cancel all that out; To render a person's "bad" side so dominant over any "good" that they deserve death, then you are a monster.

I don't think you actually are such a vile monster though. I suspect that you're just (like so many people) prepared to accept almost any level of abstract moral depravity, in defence of a belief that you have held for so long that you aren't even aware that it is a belief, and not a fact about reality.

The problem is that you fail to see the cost of the other side. You don't notice the people who are harmed or killed by those criminals that the people were powerless to defend themselves against. It makes our criminals much more cautious in preying on people because it greatly reduces their ability to judge how well their prospective target can defend themselves.

You believe that people can be divided into two categories - "good guys" and "bad guys". But they cannot. Everyone - me and you included - falls into BOTH camps. And it's therefore no more acceptable that some small time drug dealer should die young than it is that you, or your wife, or any of your friends, should die young.

It's a matter of the path they chose. You choose a path of violence, maybe you lose. It's like I don't mourn someone who died climbing Everest--they chose the risk.

Even if we accept that capital punishment is, under some circumstances, an acceptable treatment for the worst of criminals, it doesn't follow that the extrajudicial death of a person who has committed crimes isn't the death of an innocent. Everyone is innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law.

Every time a criminal dies, without first having been sentenced to death by a court, that is an innocent death.

No. Except in some idiotic states (whose laws I do not agree with!) the shooter has to show that the person who was shot was engaged in activity that appeared to be a threat to the shooter's life or substantial bodily harm. Most were very obviously not innocent, although there are occasional cases involving threats that turned out to not be lethal. (For example, where I grew up there was a road rage case--the people in the other car saw him take something off the rifle rack on his truck. Turns out it was a club, not a gun--presumably the guy was going to come bang on their car.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

9 children, including 5-year-old, shot outside Ga. gas station

The victims range in age from 5 to 17.

www.wsbtv.com

COLUMBUS, Ga. — Nine children are recovering in the hospital after being shot outside of a gas station on Friday night.

Columbus police officers were called to a Shell gas station just after 10 p.m. in reference to a shooting.



When they got there, they found a large group of people that included nine juveniles who had suffered gunshot wounds.


The victims included:

• Male, 5
• Male, 12
• Female, 13
• Female, 13
• Male, 13
• Male, 14
• Male, 15
• Male, 15
• Male, 17

The victims’ names have not been released because they are juveniles.

All nine were taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

The police not saying what caused it makes it very likely this was gang related. I'm going to guess a drive-by against some of those older males. In gang land 17 is certainly not a child (gang status trumps child status) and some of the others very well might not be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you assume we have large numbers of innocent deaths? Most murders are criminal on criminal.

Why do you assume most murders are criminal on criminal?

Why do you stick your head so deep in the sand?

Hint: When innocents die it typically makes the news. The cases that make the news are a few percent of all the murders.

Let me get this straight - you assume the media is Santa Claus because they know which victims are naughty and which are nice?

The circumstances generally say a lot about the crime.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you assume we have large numbers of innocent deaths? Most murders are criminal on criminal.

Why do you assume most murders are criminal on criminal?

Why do you stick your head so deep in the sand?

Hint: When innocents die it typically makes the news. The cases that make the news are a few percent of all the murders.

Let me get this straight - you assume the media is Santa Claus because they know which victims are naughty and which are nice?

The circumstances generally say a lot about the crime.

Where I live, all murders are reported. I doubt every victim is innocent.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that you fail to see the cost of the other side. You don't notice the people who are harmed or killed by those criminals that the people were powerless to defend themselves against. It makes our criminals much more cautious in preying on people because it greatly reduces their ability to judge how well their prospective target can defend themselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that your crime situation would be even worse than at present if people weren't allowed to have guns for self defence?

Because the evidence for that is zero. It's just something you believe, and think is so obvious that it doesn't need a citation. Like that the Earth is basically flat, and that nature abhors a vacuum.

Your criminals are no more cautious or reluctant to prey on people than criminals anywhere else in the world.

 

[Oleg]

Your criminals are no more cautious or reluctant to prey on people than criminals anywhere else in the world.

Protective Effects of Gun Ownership

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...

nap.nationalacademies.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that you fail to see the cost of the other side. You don't notice the people who are harmed or killed by those criminals that the people were powerless to defend themselves against. It makes our criminals much more cautious in preying on people because it greatly reduces their ability to judge how well their prospective target can defend themselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that your crime situation would be even worse than at present if people weren't allowed to have guns for self defence?

Because the evidence for that is zero. It's just something you believe, and think is so obvious that it doesn't need a citation. Like that the Earth is basically flat, and that nature abhors a vacuum.

Your criminals are no more cautious or reluctant to prey on people than criminals anywhere else in the world.

You continue to think our crime situation is out of control. We have a high murder rate, that does not mean we are high in other crimes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your criminals are no more cautious or reluctant to prey on people than criminals anywhere else in the world.

Protective Effects of Gun Ownership

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...

nap.nationalacademies.org

While Kleck can have some good data his conclusions are generally crap. Toss that 2.5m in the trash.

 

[TV and credit cards]

From Rand
Homicides by state with gender/race breakout and restrictive/permissible laws.
You can also plug in laws into states that don't have them for an estimate of outcome.

 

[Worldtraveller]

A short story in a few tweets:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1628043638927200259

https://twitter.com/WFTV/status/1628519622239559681

https://twitter.com/MyNews13/status/1628552434468458498

 

[Derec]

Nope. Teenagers are considered children but most people.

[citation needed], but even if true of "most people", most people are wrong about many things.
Human development is not a binary switch that gets flipped on one's 18th birthday. It's a continuum. Even the law recognizes that. 16 year olds are allowed to do things that 12 year olds are not, such as drive and have sex (not all states, but it applies to GA). Teenagers can and often are tried as adults for serious crimes.

They are not adults, no matter how much you repeat your falsehood that they are not.

They are not adults, but neither are they children. They are teenagers, yutes, however you want to call them. It's a transitional period. A 15-17 year olds who got shot in Columbus are closer in their developmental stage to young adults than to the 12 year old, much less the 5 year old who was also shot.

 

[Derec]

Not sure if this would qualify as a "mass shooting" as it involved more than one location, but here goes.
Reporter, 9-year-old girl killed in Orlando shooting spree: What we know

A suspect was taken into custody on Wednesday after an Orlando journalist and a 9-year-old child were killed, and two others were shot in Pine Hills.
Key information:

• 3 dead, 2 injured in series of shootings on Wednesday
• 9-year-old girl, TV news reporter killed
• 19-year-old suspect arrested
• No motive identified
• WESH reporter says she had "gut feeling" to leave before gunfire broke out

[...]
Keith Moses, 19, is believed to have been the gunman involved in all of the shootings. A judge has denied him bond.
On Thursday, Mina explained part of the timeline between when the shooting on Harrington Street took place and when the suspect was arrested. He said when they arrested Moses, his Glock handgun was still hot, and no more rounds were inside. Deputies believe the same weapon was used in all of the killings.
[...]
Moses is a known gang member, although the shootings were not gang-related, according to the sheriff. It’s still unclear what the motive is for any of the killings.[...]
Mina said Moses has a lengthy criminal history, including aggravated battery, assault and grand theft.
WESH 2 took a deeper look at his criminal past but only found misdemeanor drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia charges from November 2021. Those charges were later dropped.
It appears the more serious crimes occurred when he was a juvenile, and the records are not publicly available online.

Had he been charged as an adult for his aggravated battery etc. charges, this tragedy might have been avoided.

 

[Derec]

Update on the Columbus, GA shooting. They caught two shooters.
Police: 15-year-old boy, man arrested after allegedly shooting 9 kids at Columbus, Ga. gas station

A 15-year-old boy and a 35-year-old man were arrested Saturday one week after a shooting at a Columbus, Ga., gas station left nine children injured, according to police.
The 35-year-old man was charged with eight counts of aggravated assault, while the teen was charged with one count of aggravated assault and was identified by police as "validated gang member."

All those who had "gang shooting" in their betting pools may now collect their winnings.
But I wonder why only one count of aggravated assault for the little twerp.

Also:

He also noted the 5-year-old victim was not part of the group but rather a bystander at the gas station with family.

That's what I thought likely initially. The five year old did not fit with the group of teenagers (and one tween) who were shot at.
Hopefully the 5 year old wasn't hit directly, but rather with a bullet fragments from a ricochet.