Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Derec]

1) You can't accomplish that without pretty much disarming all of society.

So... ?

When gun control is debated, the argument is always made that nobody is trying to take people's guns away, just institute some common-sense reforms.
Here you come along and falsify that. Some people (like you) do want to take people's guns away.

 

[Derec]

a tiny cylinder with 30,000 feet of potential energy

"Feet" are not a unit of energy. Potential or otherwise.

 

[laughing dog]

Though we're awash in current events from all over the world, this barely makes the news anymore and hardly draws a comment.
Welcome to normal.

The reason that this mass shooting receives little attention is that it neither involves the so-called "assault weapons" nor does it have a white shooter.

You misspelled "only one student was murdered".

So it's not suitable to make political points the Left wants to make.

When did not wanting children being shot to death in schools become a political point? When I was a kid, we had fire drills. My daughter does those, and the lockdown / someone is trying to murder y'all drill. That isn't fucking political, it is a fucking travesty.

The problem is the gun-grabbers focus on rare events.

Which is riskier? A year in grade school, or taking a flight?

Spoiler

They're approximately equal

Approximately equal? In the US? What the fuck are you even smoking these days?

Show me your data.

I did a quick Google, and found:

IATA flight incidents, 2022, USA:

Deaths - 19

School Shootings, 2022, USA:

Note that I said "grade school". Not "school". Once you include high schools you are catching gang violence that spills onto campus and it becomes much harder to figure out what is truly a school shooting (targeting based on location) vs situations that simply happened at a school (targeting based on identity.) And look at a wider window as both sets of data are noisy. Furthermore, you failed to scale either number. I'm comparing the risk of a year in grade school to the risk of taking a flight.

By the way, parents are not expected nor required to send their children on airline flights, nor is a failure to do so likely to harm those children's future employment prospects. If you are going to make something mandatory, you have a duty to also make it safe.

But the reality is that we don't panic over the risk of a plane crash, or try to make big shifts in society to reduce plane crashes. Our reaction to school shootings is way disproportionate to the actual risk.

What you are missing is that there should be no risk of being shot in grade school or middle school or high school. Really, what is wrong with you?

 

[EricH]

Here you come along and falsify that. Some people (like you) do want to take people's guns away

I am good with disarming a vast majority of the population and writing a new amendment to revoke the second and criminalize gun ownership formost people. I am good with it because I have real world experience of what guns do to human bodies (4 years in the Marine Corps and a Purple Heart earned in Vietnam). And because there is no reason for the general population to be armed, and I not shy about voicing my opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

My reply addressed Derec's main point, which was that lefty liberal politics was why we didn't hear about it. I disagreed. I didn't miss his point. You missed mine.

I think politics of the news organizations plays a huge role is why certain cases are covered extensively (and excessively) and why others disappear from coverage quickly.
Take Trayvon Martin. The news media yapped about him incessantly for years, and it wasn't because the case had an unusually large body count.

Yeah, it’s because a child was gunned down by two trigger happy cowards wearing badges.

 

[Copernicus]

1) You can't accomplish that without pretty much disarming all of society.

So... ?

When gun control is debated, the argument is always made that nobody is trying to take people's guns away, just institute some common-sense reforms.
Here you come along and falsify that. Some people (like you) do want to take people's guns away.

The fact that some people in the debate would like to see a near complete ban on all gun ownership is inconsequential. There are more or less extreme positions on both sides of the debate. The reality is that most people who favor gun control do not want or expect that. The "gun grabber" argument is just a desperate attempt to scare gun owners into adopting more radical positions against gun control.

 

[Elixir]

Only shot is to start an "Arm the hell out of the minorities" movement. Maybe then whites will care.

Longtime fan here. Population control democratized. Everyone gets their own “vote” on who lives and who dies. In the end the meek shall inherit the earth as the rest of humanity will have exterminated itself.

The "gun grabber" argument is just a desperate attempt to scare gun owners into adopting more radical positions against gun control.

i.e. sell more guns

I wonder if the mfrs ever anticipate a saturation level, where it gets harder to sell guns. Prob’ly not - it’s the same with some people and guitars; they can’t have enough even though you can only play one at a time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the reality is that we don't panic over the risk of a plane crash, or try to make big shifts in society to reduce plane crashes. Our reaction to school shootings is way disproportionate to the actual risk.

The TSA would like a word with you.

We have made HUGE shifts in society to avoid plane crashes and plane violence.
How could you try to pretend we haven’t?

From requiring extra ID to board, to 3-ounce clear bottles, to removing our shoes, to not being able to carry scissors to cut my crochet yarn, to no lingering at pick-up lanes, to scans showing naked bodies to strangers in the TSA line.


No big shift in society to reduce violence on planes?
Are you deluded? Or just so married to the gun fetish that you can’t think straight?

TSA is almost all security theater. The thing all that "security" actually does is makes it easier to catch mules. The imaging scanner is actually less able to detect a well-concealed bomb than the old metal detector--it is completely unable to see metal that does not occlude the person carrying it and it would need a major redesign to ensure that said metal will always occlude from some point of view. A small piece of metal properly placed in your clothing is invisible--that's your blasting cap. Beyond that, the image is crude and really only detects edges. Ensure your bomb is carefully feathered against your body and it won't be seen.

 

[Rhea]

But the reality is that we don't panic over the risk of a plane crash, or try to make big shifts in society to reduce plane crashes. Our reaction to school shootings is way disproportionate to the actual risk.

The TSA would like a word with you.

We have made HUGE shifts in society to avoid plane crashes and plane violence.
How could you try to pretend we haven’t?

From requiring extra ID to board, to 3-ounce clear bottles, to removing our shoes, to not being able to carry scissors to cut my crochet yarn, to no lingering at pick-up lanes, to scans showing naked bodies to strangers in the TSA line.


No big shift in society to reduce violence on planes?
Are you deluded? Or just so married to the gun fetish that you can’t think straight?

TSA is almost all security theater. The thing all that "security" actually does is makes it easier to catch mules. The imaging scanner is actually less able to detect a well-concealed bomb than the old metal detector--it is completely unable to see metal that does not occlude the person carrying it and it would need a major redesign to ensure that said metal will always occlude from some point of view. A small piece of metal properly placed in your clothing is invisible--that's your blasting cap. Beyond that, the image is crude and really only detects edges. Ensure your bomb is carefully feathered against your body and it won't be seen.

Please see Main Point - bolded for you. Which you completely dodged in your non-answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know that the insane 2nd amendment will not be overturned, but it seems really stupid and dangerous that we can't even have some tough laws regarding gun control. And, of course, gun safety is a huge problem as too many people don't store their guns in locked cabinets and/or keep them unloaded in a house that has children, while storing the ammo separately. No one under 21 should be permitted to own a gun legally. Of course, now that we have more guns in the country than we do people. guns aren't going away, but one would think that people would at least want to have laws that keep should children safer. Parents should always be held responsible when a child acquires access to a gun, regardless if they used it on themselves, in a school or against another person. Sadly, as long as we have the crazy SCOTUS that we currently do, along with so many politicians who fetishize guns, I don't see much happening to improve the situation.

The vast majority of guns used in crimes are not owned legally. Thus the laws about who may have one don't have much effect.

I do agree that guns should in general be locked up and always should be locked up if children are about. However, the left tries to go overboard on this resulting in nothing being done. (Lock up, yes. Gun safe--impossible for many.)

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

Improving mental health care would also help, as so many children as well as adults currently suffer from mental problems, including anxiety and depression. Bullying in school is also a problem as many school shooters have been the victims of bullying in schools. I have no idea why it's gotten so bad. I went to a huge public high school in NJ in the 60s and I guess perhaps a few kids were bullied but I don't know of a single case of that type of behavior. These days it seems very common. Anyone have an idea why? If you have children in school, do you know of any episodes of bullying. I volunteered in an elementary school about 20 years ago and there was no bullying. Even the little boy who was on the autism spectrum was treated kindly by the other kids, in spite of his behavior being, let's say, a bit different. How did we get to this point?

I don't think bullying has "gotten" that bad. Rather, I think we are more aware of it, less sweeping it under the rug.

I do agree mass shooters are more common but that's because it's a quick route to infamy. Most shooters are suicides, doing a mass shooting makes them a somebody rather than a nobody. This is the result of the publicity they get these days.

And you think there was no bullying?? No. Rather, the victims quickly learn to hide it. To say something gets retaliation but no protection. Thus it usually stays hidden unless it reaches the point of somebody going to the hospital. Over the decades I have seen a lot of discussion of bullying with victims speaking out about what happened to them. Against a lone bully hurting them sometimes "solves" (they just move on to another target) the problem. Against a group hurting them means the one that was hurt has to save face amongst his peers and always makes it worse. Note that "hurting them" includes getting them punished by the school.

 

[Derec]

Take Trayvon Martin. The news media yapped about him incessantly for years, and it wasn't because the case had an unusually large body count.

Yeah, it’s because a child

What "child"? Trayvon was 17.

was gunned down by two

Two?

trigger happy cowards wearing badges.

Defending yourself from attack does not make one a coward or trigger happy.
And what do you mean by "wearing badges"?

 

[laughing dog]

Take Trayvon Martin. The news media yapped about him incessantly for years, and it wasn't because the case had an unusually large body count.

Yeah, it’s because a child

What "child"? Trayvon was 17.

That makes him a child.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Take Trayvon Martin. The news media yapped about him incessantly for years, and it wasn't because the case had an unusually large body count.

Yeah, it’s because a child

What "child"? Trayvon was 17.

was gunned down by two

Two?

trigger happy cowards wearing badges.

Defending yourself from attack does not make one a coward or trigger happy.
And what do you mean by "wearing badges"?

View attachment 45161

It seems he has confused it with another case. The one where the cops drove up to a kid with a toy gun and immediately shot him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The moron in Wisconsin was probably in the wrong. Unfortunately, Wisconsin law says the prosecutor must prove it wasn't self defense beyond a reasonable doubt--and while I think he probably had unclean hands and thus no right of self defense, but that's not the same as beyond a reasonable doubt.

Are you two talking about Kyle Rittenhouse? He was definitely defending himself (video evidence confirms it) from attack by three idiots, two of them convicted felons, and one of them armed with a gun.
I do not see why you think he "probably had unclean hands", and in any case, "probably" should not be enough to convict somebody of a crime.

You have to prove self defense--but more typically to preponderance of the evidence.

It comes down to what happened offscreen--were they reacting to what he did? If so, he probably had unclean hands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My reply addressed Derec's main point, which was that lefty liberal politics was why we didn't hear about it. I disagreed. I didn't miss his point. You missed mine.

I think politics of the news organizations plays a huge role is why certain cases are covered extensively (and excessively) and why others disappear from coverage quickly.
Take Trayvon Martin. The news media yapped about him incessantly for years, and it wasn't because the case had an unusually large body count.

I don't think that case was a right vs left. Rather, you can pretty much count on the media to take the side of controversy. Controversy gets eyeballs, a simple self defense case gets a few inches in the local news section. The media care far more about not missing a case that others cover than about whether first impressions are the whole answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My reply addressed Derec's main point, which was that lefty liberal politics was why we didn't hear about it. I disagreed. I didn't miss his point. You missed mine.

I think politics of the news organizations plays a huge role is why certain cases are covered extensively (and excessively) and why others disappear from coverage quickly.
Take Trayvon Martin. The news media yapped about him incessantly for years, and it wasn't because the case had an unusually large body count.

Yeah, it’s because a child was gunned down by two trigger happy cowards wearing badges.

You're getting your cases mixed up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You can't accomplish that without pretty much disarming all of society.

So... ?

When gun control is debated, the argument is always made that nobody is trying to take people's guns away, just institute some common-sense reforms.
Here you come along and falsify that. Some people (like you) do want to take people's guns away.

The fact that some people in the debate would like to see a near complete ban on all gun ownership is inconsequential. There are more or less extreme positions on both sides of the debate. The reality is that most people who favor gun control do not want or expect that. The "gun grabber" argument is just a desperate attempt to scare gun owners into adopting more radical positions against gun control.

It's not an extreme position in terms of numbers.

Note his "So... ?" That's showing him to be a gun grabber.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the reality is that we don't panic over the risk of a plane crash, or try to make big shifts in society to reduce plane crashes. Our reaction to school shootings is way disproportionate to the actual risk.

The TSA would like a word with you.

We have made HUGE shifts in society to avoid plane crashes and plane violence.
How could you try to pretend we haven’t?

From requiring extra ID to board, to 3-ounce clear bottles, to removing our shoes, to not being able to carry scissors to cut my crochet yarn, to no lingering at pick-up lanes, to scans showing naked bodies to strangers in the TSA line.


No big shift in society to reduce violence on planes?
Are you deluded? Or just so married to the gun fetish that you can’t think straight?

TSA is almost all security theater. The thing all that "security" actually does is makes it easier to catch mules. The imaging scanner is actually less able to detect a well-concealed bomb than the old metal detector--it is completely unable to see metal that does not occlude the person carrying it and it would need a major redesign to ensure that said metal will always occlude from some point of view. A small piece of metal properly placed in your clothing is invisible--that's your blasting cap. Beyond that, the image is crude and really only detects edges. Ensure your bomb is carefully feathered against your body and it won't be seen.

Please see Main Point - bolded for you. Which you completely dodged in your non-answer.

I did address it. We didn't make big changes. TSA simply replaced existing local security with federal. Other than prohibiting blades it didn't involve any appreciable change. Since then we have added the 3oz rule (which is actually an exercise in theater, it just makes it harder. It would stop a stupid lone wolf and that's about it) and we have added the imaging scanners (which, again, will only catch the stupid ones.)

We have done two actual changes: restrictions on blades and reinforced cockpit doors. (Which has actually been a contributing factor in one crash.) The real change happened immediately--it used to be the proper course of action was to do what the hijacker wanted and sort it out on the ground wherever he wanted to go. 9/11 changed that, now the passengers are going to fight anyone who tries to force their way into the cockpit. It was basically a one-time plot.

 

[Worldtraveller]

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

Umm...Australia seems like a good example. I mean, if you think American Samoa is a great proxy for the entire US economy, I think when it comes to gun control, Australia is a much more appropriate model.

 

[Rhea]

The vast majority of guns used in crimes are not owned legally. Thus the laws about who may have one don't have much effect.

Your math is wrong.
If the vast majority are possessed illegally, then stopping the SOURCE, which at some point was legal, stops the thefts. You can’t steal what people don’t have. And you won’t steal, what people don’t make easy to steal.

If people aren’t allowed to carry guns around in their trucks, guns will not get stolen from their truck.
If people aren’t allowed to own a gun without locking it up, then guns will not get stolen/taken-by-kids from the rack.

I do agree that guns should in general be locked up and always should be locked up if children are about. However, the left tries to go overboard on this resulting in nothing being done. (Lock up, yes. Gun safe--impossible for many.)

If people are too fucking inconvenienced to adhere to not leaving their guns around to create the massive stolen gun problem, you think enforcing that and making them secure their guns is “going overboard”. WTF? If that’s their incompetency, then I honestly do not care that owning a gun becomes ”impossible for many” Of those incompetents who are feeding the stolen gun problem.

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

There is a lot of data, it has been shown to you. Not the least is every other country that does not allow careless gun ownership. Then also US states with good control laws and a distance from states with bad control laws.

gun grabber.

??

”Gun Grabber” ???

This is such a weird, reflexive defiance phrase. “Gun Grabber”??

The typical use case for this phrase is
”Anyone who wants to enact any control of gun ownership or storage of any kind is a ‘gun grabber’.”
and also
“Gun Grabbers want a total band on any and all weapons of any kind or circumstance”
and thence
“Any attempt of any kind to make guns safer is EXACTLY the case of a desire for a total ban.”


And that, of course is all emotional bullshit lies.