Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[barbos]

None of the definitions from the infographic above includes things like "not at a party" as a criterion.

I don't accept these definitions, they are stupid.

That's bullshit. A shooting being gang related or "at a party" in no way precludes premeditation.

Gang related shooting should have their own category. I suggest naming it "gang-related shootings".
Don't worry, I can assure you, blacks will win in that category.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looks like they probably were. I rather suspect this is going to turn out to be where they had suffered abuse for being trans.

Who is "they"? There was only one shooter. Did she have a mouse in her pocket or something?

We have always used "they" for third person singular uncertain gender. Question about trans (since confirmed), I used "they".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

 

[laughing dog]

I did not.

Yes, you did.

You cannot possibly be in a position to know whether I ignored it or not.

Your sources show white makes commit over half the mass shootings. No other single category of men comes close. That makes white men as a group the largest problem.

But that's solely because well over half the population is white. You are basically blaming whites for being the biggest demographic group in the US.

Nope, but facts are facts. Remember your first source had the per capita rate for white males the same as for black men and native american nen at 0.09 per 100,000x

Per capita frequencies are suggestive of individual probabilities or individual representation but not necessarily of a larger issue.

Per capita rates are the only thing that matters.

Perhaps to snowflakes.

Unless you want to play bigoted games, which evidently you do.

That bullshit is rich coming from you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.
I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

It certainly is unjust. Sellers should not be held liable for what somebody else does with their weapon any more than a car dealer should be held liable if the car they sold is used as a getaway car for a robbery or even just to LARP GTA.

The only time gun dealers should be held liable is if they violated some law when making the sale, like bypassing a background check. But if they do everything that is required of them, why should they be held liable?

And note that if there's some sort of liability attached it's going to result in considerable discrimination (selling to people they like) without actually doing much of anything (as a gun dealer is not in a position to evaluate a buyer.)

 

[barbos]

Whatever I would offer, you'd say it's not an "actual" mass shooting.

I specifically specified "school" mass shooting.

 

[bilby]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

If they sell cars for the express purpose of using them to kill people, sure we should.

 

[Derec]

I’ve also separated out mass shootings the way most people think of them: school shootings, shootings at houses of worship, concerts, shopping malls, concerts, etc. where almost all of the shooters have been white and male.

Just like Barbos, you are trying to artificially restrict the definition to get the outcome you want - to blame white men specifically. Because that fits your ideology.
But even so, you have not offered any evidence for your claim that when you restrict venues to "school shootings, shootings at houses of worship, concerts, shopping malls, concerts, etc." that "almost all" the shooters are white men. Show you data please.

You use the definition of four or more victims, which, aside from the types I enumerated above, tend to have different motivations ( often related to other criminal activity) and different deferent types of perpetrators—individuals visuals who are otherwise known to engage in criminal activity

I am not wedded to any single definition, and i acknowledge that there is not a single definition. That's why I posted that infographic upthread.

There is a big difference between shooting up an elementary school, deliberately targeting young children, and criminals shooting each other over turf wars or similar.

What about shooting up a Sweet 16 party as happened in Douglasville, GA?
'Lost a piece of my heart' | Mothers of teens killed in Douglasville Sweet 16 party shooting speak at sentencing

Victims are different, although certainly children are often killed in this type of violence and certainly many children are deeply and negatively affected by the danger, violence and fear that permeate their neighborhoods, their families and their lives.

Children and teenagers can often be victims of these shootings even if they are not intended victims.
So why exclude these types of shootings? Just to play racial politics? To me, that's disgusting.

You have a great deal of difficulty acknowledging that there is a very specific type of mass murder that is most likely to be committed by someone(s) who are white and male.

You have yet to show any actual data to that effect. I will give you one thing - mass shootings that are likely to become national news are most likely to have white perpetrators. But that tells us more about the national media than the underlying crimes.
And what if the subtypes of mass shootings differ by race? The dead are still dead, the wounded are still wounded.

Criminality by white men is often acknowledged by society as a whole—FFS, we just elected a convicted felon!

Not that shit again! Had Alvin Bragg and his chipmunks not upgraded expired nothingburger misdemeanors to felonies for political reasons, he might not have gotten reelected. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a private citizen Trump with zero felonies than the shit show we now have.

White color crime is somehow seen as ‘victimless’ although many lives are ruined and indeed, people die as a result.

Nobody is seeing white collar (not color, people of any color can commit white collar crimes) crimes as victimless. Crimes such as fraud or embezzlement definitely have victims. And sentences for those can be very long - Bernie Madoff "with the money" got 150 years. What are victimless crimes are for example weed selling and possession or consensual sex work.
However, white collar crime is rightly seen as less severe than violent crime. Bernie Madoff may steal your money, but he will not shoot you like a mugger might.

We also allow white collar criminals to buy legislators and legislation, law enforcement, office holders, etc.

We allow that? Who is this "we"?

Key word seems to be white.

 

[Toni]

I’ve also separated out mass shootings the way most people think of them: school shootings, shootings at houses of worship, concerts, shopping malls, concerts, etc. where almost all of the shooters have been white and male.

Just like Barbos, you are trying to artificially restrict the definition to get the outcome you want - to blame white men specifically. Because that fits your ideology.
But even so, you have not offered any evidence for your claim that when you restrict venues to "school shootings, shootings at houses of worship, concerts, shopping malls, concerts, etc." that "almost all" the shooters are white men. Show you data please.

You use the definition of four or more victims, which, aside from the types I enumerated above, tend to have different motivations ( often related to other criminal activity) and different deferent types of perpetrators—individuals visuals who are otherwise known to engage in criminal activity

I am not wedded to any single definition, and i acknowledge that there is not a single definition. That's why I posted that infographic upthread.

There is a big difference between shooting up an elementary school, deliberately targeting young children, and criminals shooting each other over turf wars or similar.

What about shooting up a Sweet 16 party as happened in Douglasville, GA?
'Lost a piece of my heart' | Mothers of teens killed in Douglasville Sweet 16 party shooting speak at sentencing

Victims are different, although certainly children are often killed in this type of violence and certainly many children are deeply and negatively affected by the danger, violence and fear that permeate their neighborhoods, their families and their lives.

Children and teenagers can often be victims of these shootings even if they are not intended victims.
So why exclude these types of shootings? Just to play racial politics? To me, that's disgusting.

You have a great deal of difficulty acknowledging that there is a very specific type of mass murder that is most likely to be committed by someone(s) who are white and male.

You have yet to show any actual data to that effect. I will give you one thing - mass shootings that are likely to become national news are most likely to have white perpetrators. But that tells us more about the national media than the underlying crimes.
And what if the subtypes of mass shootings differ by race? The dead are still dead, the wounded are still wounded.

Criminality by white men is often acknowledged by society as a whole—FFS, we just elected a convicted felon!

Not that shit again! Had Alvin Bragg and his chipmunks not upgraded expired nothingburger misdemeanors to felonies for political reasons, he might not have gotten reelected. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a private citizen Trump with zero felonies than the shit show we now have.

White color crime is somehow seen as ‘victimless’ although many lives are ruined and indeed, people die as a result.

Nobody is seeing white collar (not color, people of any color can commit white collar crimes) crimes as victimless. Crimes such as fraud or embezzlement definitely have victims. And sentences for those can be very long - Bernie Madoff "with the money" got 150 years. What are victimless crimes are for example weed selling and possession or consensual sex work.
However, white collar crime is rightly seen as less severe than violent crime. Bernie Madoff may steal your money, but he will not shoot you like a mugger might.

We also allow white collar criminals to buy legislators and legislation, law enforcement, office holders, etc.

We allow that? Who is this "we"?

Key word seems to be white.

No, I’m pretty sure that the title of this thread is specifically about mass shootings at schools.

You and Loren like to talk about shootings that are specifically related to other criminal activity so that you have an opportunity to talk about how violent not white people are.

I genuinely do not know the best way to comprehensively address the fact that today school children must learn what to do in an active shooter scenario —five your olds! because gun lobbyists have succeeded in preventing sensible restrictions on gun ownership and gun sales and others have successfully made it difficult for mentally ill people or just people in crisis to access the help that they need. And here’s the thing: once your kid is 18, you cannot force them to get any kind of mental health care if they don’t want to. You cannot compel medication. And it is hella difficult to obtain mental health care for adolescents. Even if you have money for private pay—which most people do not.

In the USA, the leading cause of death for children and adolescents 18 and under is firearms.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

Whenever someone tries to suggest that cars are somehow a proper analogy for guns we should remind them that cars require licenses and registrations to legally operate (not to mention bilby’s point that cars are not designed to kill).

 

[crazyfingers]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

Whenever someone tries to suggest that cars are somehow a proper analogy for guns we should remind them that cars require licenses and registrations to legally operate (not to mention bilby’s point that cars are not designed to kill).

And the primary purpose of a car is not to kill someone. That is a primary purpose of a gun.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

Whenever someone tries to suggest that cars are somehow a proper analogy for guns we should remind them that cars require licenses and registrations to legally operate (not to mention bilby’s point that cars are not designed to kill).

And the primary purpose of a car is not to kill someone. That is a primary purpose of a gun.

And should be pointed out we don't allow unsafe vehicles on roads in various states (I don't know about all states, but the sensible ones don't). We also hold vehicle manufacturers responsible if they manufacture an unsafe vehicle or part of it is unsafe, that is why airbags get recalled, etc. We even hold toy manufacturers responsible if a toy is unsafe for children.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

No but probably should put people who run web boards in jail when users make up shitty analogies.

Sorry Ziprhead.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.
I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

It certainly is unjust. Sellers should not be held liable for what somebody else does with their weapon any more than a car dealer should be held liable if the car they sold is used as a getaway car for a robbery or even just to LARP GTA.

The only time gun dealers should be held liable is if they violated some law when making the sale, like bypassing a background check. But if they do everything that is required of them, why should they be held liable?

And note that if there's some sort of liability attached it's going to result in considerable discrimination (selling to people they like) without actually doing much of anything (as a gun dealer is not in a position to evaluate a buyer.)

Why the heck not? Blessed are the arms dealers, who are innocent and blameless for the murderous acts they facilitate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.
I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

It certainly is unjust. Sellers should not be held liable for what somebody else does with their weapon any more than a car dealer should be held liable if the car they sold is used as a getaway car for a robbery or even just to LARP GTA.

No, that isn't an analogy at all. The firearms generally used in these massacrea are exclusively designed to kill people.

Cars are not.

Keeping the seller of weapons from any liability enables people to facilitate mass murder without any worries, as long as the check clears.

The only time gun dealers should be held liable is if they violated some law when making the sale, like bypassing a background check. But if they do everything that is required of them, why should they be held liable?

Because they facilitated a mass shooting.

The company that rented the terrorists the UHaul in '93 bombing could be excused for saying they had no idea the truck would be used to facilitate a bombing.

A person that sells semi-automatic weapons cam't be shocked that they werw used to kill people.

But this is America and we aren't allowed to recognize that these guns are dangerous to the general public and we'lll just have this discussion again about how it would be unfair to hold a facilitator of the murder of children reaponsible for their role in the children's murder.

Blessed are the arms dealers.

 

[robnisch]

I think an objective look at the 2nd Amendment in a 21st century setting would be useful.
The courts have ruled that guns can be restricted and controlled.
No right is 100%. Free speech has limits.
As far as "assault type weapons". No real hunter would use one.
And as for self/home defense they suck.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think an objective look at the 2nd Amendment in a 21st century setting would be useful.
The courts have ruled that guns can be restricted and controlled.
No right is 100%. Free speech has limits.
As far as "assault type weapons". No real hunter would use one.
And as for self/home defense they suck.

And letting every Tom, Dick, or Harry walk around with a handgun is stupid.

Road rage incidents involving handguns has skyrocketed since the loosening of handgun rules.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’ve also separated out mass shootings the way most people think of them: school shootings, shootings at houses of worship, concerts, shopping malls, concerts, etc. where almost all of the shooters have been white and male.

You use the definition of four or more victims, which, aside from the types I enumerated above, tend to have different motivations ( often related to other criminal activity) and different deferent types of perpetrators—individuals visuals who are otherwise known to engage in criminal activity. There is a big difference between shooting up an elementary school, deliberately targeting young children, and criminals shooting each other over turf wars or similar. Victims are different, although certainly children are often killed in this type of violence and certainly many children are deeply and negatively affected by the danger, violence and fear that permeate their neighborhoods, their families and their lives.

4+, public, indiscriminate. That covers what we typically think of as mass shootings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

If they sell cars for the express purpose of using them to kill people, sure we should.

Except the vast, vast majority of guns never kill anyone.

Guns are sold for two reasons: sport and emergency need. There are many products that never are called upon to actually do their job, they exist just in case.

 

[laughing dog]

I think we need better gun laws. Too bad the Dems go-to prescription is about banning certain guns based on how they look.

I don’t think that’s the limiting factor getting better gun laws through Congress.

What gun laws have the Republicans proffered that you think are more sensible?

Exactly. Neither side offers reasonable proposals, both sides offer unreasonable proposals and are rightfully attacked by the other side over them.

That being said, it's pretty hard to devise a law that prevents this sort of thing without basically abolishing guns.

The solution is to make sellers liable for crimes committed with the weapons they recently sold.

I'll sit back and wait for your WAH about how that is unfair to sellers of deadly weapons.

And shall we make car dealerships liable for drunk drivers?

If they sell cars for the express purpose of using them to kill people, sure we should.

Except the vast, vast majority of guns never kill anyone.

Guns are sold for two reasons: sport and emergency need. There are many products that never are called upon to actually do their job, they exist just in case.

So what’s the problem for holding gun dealers liable for the misuse of mass shootings?