Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Sorry, you've proved her point. The ones that make national news are the ones that people usually think of as "mass shootings". The public/indiscriminate cases. Your race statistics obviously are from one of the columns on the right.

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.

No, the law worked just as it was supposed to. It was designed to go after dirty books covering up other wrongdoing. I have a big problem with it based on it being preponderance of the evidence, but no problem with applying the felony upgrade to his actions.

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.

I'm sure she just made a typo. After all, the spell checker will not flag "color" as wrong.

And I'll actually file weed selling as not completely victimless. Growing of illegal weed is often done in a hazardous and destructive manner. The legal places have not been happy in finding out that in being legal they now have to comply with environmental regulations, pesticide residue regulations and the like.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

then there should be absolutely no problem with requiring training, licensing and registration

 

[Toni]

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.

Guns are sold because there is a market for them. Guns are used, as you state, for sport and for emergency need. You neatly euphemism both: for hunting and target shooting and for self defense. Only an absolute idiot dies not acknowledge that guns are used for killing. That is their intended purpose. Only an idiot uses a gun to intimidate someone.

I’m not sure what type of person fails to acknowledge that guns are also used to shore up some people’s flagging sense of personal power. And yes, that includes but is not limited to erections.

 

[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.

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.

This thread, however is specific to school shootings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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'm not the one bringing up the race of mass shooters. And it certainly appears that Derec has shown you are right about the race of mass shooters.

I bring up shootings related to other criminal activity because it's very relevant to understanding the problem, not because of race. I do not believe race is relevant, as with "discrimination" it's a proxy for socioeconomic conditions.

Basically, deadly shootings can be divided into five categories:

1) Shootings associated with other crime. This is most shootings. Beware of the deceptive nature of the FBI data on this--victim knew shooter doesn't mean it's not criminal in nature. A falling out amongst thieves and the like. These people rarely acquire guns in law-abiding ways so gun laws aren't going to do much. Two statistics stand out:
1a) Most murder victims have felony rap sheets.
1b) Murder is extremely concentrated in a few zip codes.

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

3) Innocent victim of crime. I am not finding data on this, but given that the total rate of stranger murder is in the 10-15% range it has to be small. As with criminal on criminal the guns were unlikely to have been obtained by legal means.

4) Defensive. We do not have good data on how many are actually saved this way (not every shooting prevented a death), but we have a few hundred per year by civilians, the number of non-lethal ones is ~10x. The number where no shots are fired is another ~10x, but this is much more nebulous in that it will catch a lot of muggers run off and the like so I do not consider it meaningful in terms of figuring lives saved.

5) Mass shootings. Note that mass shootings are always well below defensive saves.

The only categories I think gun laws could have a substantial effect on is 4 and 5. Note that the net effect is negative.

And remember that markets react to changes. You can't look and see 10% (made up number) of criminals obtained their guns legally and thus removing such sales would prevent 10% of shootings. No, you'll just drive them to illegal markets.

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.

The best way to comprehensively address active shooter scenarios for 5 year olds is to quit doing them. We don't do airplane crash scenarios for 5 year olds that are taking a plane. And guess which is more likely between 5 year old dies in a school shooting vs 5 year old dies in one airplane flight.

As for forcing mental health--can't be done, even with kids. You can force attendance, you can't actually make it work. (Same with addiction--people should never be sentenced to rehab. Even if it gets them off the drugs the same thing that drove them to the drugs in the first place are still there.) And note that the vast majority of mental illnesses have no bearing on whether one is fit to own a gun.

 

[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?

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).

Operate, not own. You can buy a car and haul it off without having a driver's license.

But I do agree with the concept. I would like to see gun licenses, you show a gun license for any gun-related transfers except under situations of direct observation. (So long as you are watching over the person handling the gun it's not considered to be transferred.) I do not expect a big benefit from it, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Gun makers get sued if they make a defective product. The "immunity" the left talks about is for misuse of their products--the gun banners were planning to bury them in mass lawsuits that would amount to suing Ford because drunks could drive their cars.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't know why this thread has become obsessed with the racial demographics of school shooters, and I rarely agree with Derec, but I looked at 3 different sites and discovered that while about 90% of school shooters are males, they weren't all white males. Most were teenagers, which makes sense since that is a difficult time for many kids as they are not yet adults but are dealing with changing hormones and other developmental issues. I don't know much about this source, but as I said, I found pretty much the same information on several different sites including one that was associated with California colleges. You all can do a few minutes of your own searches to find out the truth. I think t he primary issue is that teenagers are the most likely to commit these crimes. Were they bullied? Were they budding psychopaths? Why do so many have access to guns? We don't know all the reasons or have all the answers. One source had the years of these shootings and they went all the way back to the late 50s or early 60s. We weren't bombarded with 24 hour news back then, so perhaps we didn't hear much about those shootings. I know I didn't. We have failed those who suffer from severe mental illnesses as well as from being bullied at school.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...cial-Ethnic-Group-Percentage-N_tbl3_308401952

 

[southernhybrid]

I just checked and the guy who gave the statistics in my last post is an expert on school shootings. He has a Phd in psychology and has written at least 2 or more books on why some teenagers commit school shootings and how to identify the warning signs. I might buy one of his books for my kindle as they have received excellent reviews. That is what we need to figure out. What causes the teenagers to be killers and what can we do to help them before them commit their acts of violence. I don't know if the author of the book mentions the adults who commit these shootings, but there are probably some similarities.

 

[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?

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.

Awesome, so holding people liable for selling guns that murder people shouldn't impact many sales

 

[Elixir]

Awesome, so holding people liable for selling guns that murder people shouldn't impact many sales

That would definitely follow, logically.
BUT - guns are very low margin products. Without the super profitable murderer segment, gun sellers really can’t survive.

 

[Toni]

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'm not the one bringing up the race of mass shooters. And it certainly appears that Derec has shown you are right about the race of mass shooters.

I bring up shootings related to other criminal activity because it's very relevant to understanding the problem, not because of race. I do not believe race is relevant, as with "discrimination" it's a proxy for socioeconomic conditions.

Basically, deadly shootings can be divided into five categories:

1) Shootings associated with other crime. This is most shootings. Beware of the deceptive nature of the FBI data on this--victim knew shooter doesn't mean it's not criminal in nature. A falling out amongst thieves and the like. These people rarely acquire guns in law-abiding ways so gun laws aren't going to do much. Two statistics stand out:
1a) Most murder victims have felony rap sheets.
1b) Murder is extremely concentrated in a few zip codes.

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

3) Innocent victim of crime. I am not finding data on this, but given that the total rate of stranger murder is in the 10-15% range it has to be small. As with criminal on criminal the guns were unlikely to have been obtained by legal means.

4) Defensive. We do not have good data on how many are actually saved this way (not every shooting prevented a death), but we have a few hundred per year by civilians, the number of non-lethal ones is ~10x. The number where no shots are fired is another ~10x, but this is much more nebulous in that it will catch a lot of muggers run off and the like so I do not consider it meaningful in terms of figuring lives saved.

5) Mass shootings. Note that mass shootings are always well below defensive saves.

The only categories I think gun laws could have a substantial effect on is 4 and 5. Note that the net effect is negative.

And remember that markets react to changes. You can't look and see 10% (made up number) of criminals obtained their guns legally and thus removing such sales would prevent 10% of shootings. No, you'll just drive them to illegal markets.

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.

The best way to comprehensively address active shooter scenarios for 5 year olds is to quit doing them. We don't do airplane crash scenarios for 5 year olds that are taking a plane. And guess which is more likely between 5 year old dies in a school shooting vs 5 year old dies in one airplane flight.

As for forcing mental health--can't be done, even with kids. You can force attendance, you can't actually make it work. (Same with addiction--people should never be sentenced to rehab. Even if it gets them off the drugs the same thing that drove them to the drugs in the first place are still there.) And note that the vast majority of mental illnesses have no bearing on whether one is fit to own a gun.

Exactly what do you fail to comprehend about the CDC statement that firearms

I don't know why this thread has become obsessed with the racial demographics of school shooters, and I rarely agree with Derec, but I looked at 3 different sites and discovered that while about 90% of school shooters are males, they weren't all white males. Most were teenagers, which makes sense since that is a difficult time for many kids as they are not yet adults but are dealing with changing hormones and other developmental issues. I don't know much about this source, but as I said, I found pretty much the same information on several different sites including one that was associated with California colleges. You all can do a few minutes of your own searches to find out the truth. I think t he primary issue is that teenagers are the most likely to commit these crimes. Were they bullied? Were they budding psychopaths? Why do so many have access to guns? We don't know all the reasons or have all the answers. One source had the years of these shootings and they went all the way back to the late 50s or early 60s. We weren't bombarded with 24 hour news back then, so perhaps we didn't hear much about those shootings. I know I didn't. We have failed those who suffer from severe mental illnesses as well as from being bullied at school.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...cial-Ethnic-Group-Percentage-N_tbl3_308401952

View attachment 51944

No one, afaik, has asserted that ALL school shooters are white or make. But the overwhelming majority of school shooters are males and a majority are white.

The only reason that is of any importance in this discussion is that Derec likes to include other types of mass shootings such as gang shootings to ‘prove’ that whites are not more often school shooters.

Interestingly enough, he attributes male propensity for violence to testosterone which somehow does not require restricting males from anything while historically, women have been considered to be unfit for any things including owning property because of their hormones which render them
Too emotional and fragile.

 

[Derec]

No one, afaik, has asserted that ALL school shooters are white or make. But the overwhelming majority of school shooters are males and a majority are white.

Earlier you asserted that overwhelming number of them were "white AND male". This is a very different statement.
It is not surprising that more than half are white given that well more than half of the population is white.

The only reason that is of any importance in this discussion is that Derec likes to include other types of mass shootings such as gang shootings to ‘prove’ that whites are not more often school shooters.

I have used stats on all mass shootings because those numbers are readily available. I have not seen numbers for school shootings specifically, and you have not provided those numbers either, just claims.
And I do not see any reason why gang-related shootings should be excluded, other than to play race politics as you and the Hound are doing.

Interestingly enough, he attributes male propensity for violence to testosterone

What do you attribute it to?

which somehow does not require restricting males from anything

Of course a radfem like you would would support something as sexist as that.

while historically, women have been considered to be unfit for any things including owning property because of their hormones which render them
Too emotional and fragile.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Women have also historically, and even to this day in some circles, been considered more "innocent" and violence by them more excusable.

 

[Derec]

I don't know why this thread has become obsessed with the racial demographics of school shooters,

It went back to Toni's claim in post #2,824 that "the vast overwhelming number of people who shoot up schools (and churches and concerts and shopping malls) are white and male".

I agree that hormonal changes in teenagerdom make individuals more likely to commit violent crime.
I also think the obsession with mass shootings is like airplane crashes. Vast majority of people who are killed are not killed in mass shootings, but that's what is most often covered extensively by the news media. There were 76 homicides in Minneapolis last year, for example.

 

[Derec]

Sorry, you've proved her point. The ones that make national news are the ones that people usually think of as "mass shootings".

No, I have not. The only thing I have shown is that both she and the national media have a bias.

The public/indiscriminate cases. Your race statistics obviously are from one of the columns on the right.

Ok, let's look at that. Many gang-related shootings are in public. And this church shooter was deliberately targeting the school, so it was not indiscriminate. So why is this a legitimate "mass shooting" and, say, shooting up a party full of teens in Douglasville is not?

No, the law worked just as it was supposed to. It was designed to go after dirty books covering up other wrongdoing.

But that alleged "other wrongdoing" was never even prosecuted. That case stunk from the beginning. Especially since Bragg has a reputation to downgrade clear felonies such as armed robberies into misdemeanor petty thefts. Here he is doing the opposite for political reasons.

I have a big problem with it based on it being preponderance of the evidence, but no problem with applying the felony upgrade to his actions.

At least you acknowledge some problems with the case. I dislike Trump as much as you and Toni do, and this case helped him tremendously, since it was clearly politically motivated. Alvin would never have gone to such lengths to prosecute a Democrat based on similar facts.

And I'll actually file weed selling as not completely victimless. Growing of illegal weed is often done in a hazardous and destructive manner.

You can find negative externalities with all sorts of things, legal or illegal. Generally, when we talk about "victimless crimes" is where there is no direct harm. With white collar crimes such as embezzlement, somebody is the direct victim.
And just like with sex work, most of the harm of weed is a direct consequence of it being unjustly illegal.

 

[Derec]

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

I think that even using that definition white shooters are underrepresented. At least I have not seen any numbers to the contrary.

 

[southernhybrid]

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'm not the one bringing up the race of mass shooters. And it certainly appears that Derec has shown you are right about the race of mass shooters.

I bring up shootings related to other criminal activity because it's very relevant to understanding the problem, not because of race. I do not believe race is relevant, as with "discrimination" it's a proxy for socioeconomic conditions.

Basically, deadly shootings can be divided into five categories:

1) Shootings associated with other crime. This is most shootings. Beware of the deceptive nature of the FBI data on this--victim knew shooter doesn't mean it's not criminal in nature. A falling out amongst thieves and the like. These people rarely acquire guns in law-abiding ways so gun laws aren't going to do much. Two statistics stand out:
1a) Most murder victims have felony rap sheets.
1b) Murder is extremely concentrated in a few zip codes.

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

3) Innocent victim of crime. I am not finding data on this, but given that the total rate of stranger murder is in the 10-15% range it has to be small. As with criminal on criminal the guns were unlikely to have been obtained by legal means.

4) Defensive. We do not have good data on how many are actually saved this way (not every shooting prevented a death), but we have a few hundred per year by civilians, the number of non-lethal ones is ~10x. The number where no shots are fired is another ~10x, but this is much more nebulous in that it will catch a lot of muggers run off and the like so I do not consider it meaningful in terms of figuring lives saved.

5) Mass shootings. Note that mass shootings are always well below defensive saves.

The only categories I think gun laws could have a substantial effect on is 4 and 5. Note that the net effect is negative.

And remember that markets react to changes. You can't look and see 10% (made up number) of criminals obtained their guns legally and thus removing such sales would prevent 10% of shootings. No, you'll just drive them to illegal markets.

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.

The best way to comprehensively address active shooter scenarios for 5 year olds is to quit doing them. We don't do airplane crash scenarios for 5 year olds that are taking a plane. And guess which is more likely between 5 year old dies in a school shooting vs 5 year old dies in one airplane flight.

As for forcing mental health--can't be done, even with kids. You can force attendance, you can't actually make it work. (Same with addiction--people should never be sentenced to rehab. Even if it gets them off the drugs the same thing that drove them to the drugs in the first place are still there.) And note that the vast majority of mental illnesses have no bearing on whether one is fit to own a gun.

Exactly what do you fail to comprehend about the CDC statement that firearms

I don't know why this thread has become obsessed with the racial demographics of school shooters, and I rarely agree with Derec, but I looked at 3 different sites and discovered that while about 90% of school shooters are males, they weren't all white males. Most were teenagers, which makes sense since that is a difficult time for many kids as they are not yet adults but are dealing with changing hormones and other developmental issues. I don't know much about this source, but as I said, I found pretty much the same information on several different sites including one that was associated with California colleges. You all can do a few minutes of your own searches to find out the truth. I think t he primary issue is that teenagers are the most likely to commit these crimes. Were they bullied? Were they budding psychopaths? Why do so many have access to guns? We don't know all the reasons or have all the answers. One source had the years of these shootings and they went all the way back to the late 50s or early 60s. We weren't bombarded with 24 hour news back then, so perhaps we didn't hear much about those shootings. I know I didn't. We have failed those who suffer from severe mental illnesses as well as from being bullied at school.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...cial-Ethnic-Group-Percentage-N_tbl3_308401952

View attachment 51944

No one, afaik, has asserted that ALL school shooters are white or make. But the overwhelming majority of school shooters are males and a majority are white.

The only reason that is of any importance in this discussion is that Derec likes to include other types of mass shootings such as gang shootings to ‘prove’ that whites are not more often school shooters.

Interestingly enough, he attributes male propensity for violence to testosterone which somehow does not require restricting males from anything while historically, women have been considered to be unfit for any things including owning property because of their hormones which render them
Too emotional and fragile.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I thought someone said that none of the school shooters were Black and that isn't true. Still, 90% were males, regardless of age or ethnicity. Men statistically speaking are far more violent compared to women. But, I'd like to know more about this last school shooter and why she was obsessed with hating Jewish people and children. Why was she so obsessed with guns and why did she want to kill children? There are things she posted on social media about her plans and she even said she was depressed and apologized to her family. It's just sad that nobody saw the red flags or did anything to help her earlier.

One thing that is a little bit confusing. Two articles I read said that her mother asked that her name be changed to Robin because she identified as female while one article said that she asked to have her name changed. My point is that if her mother asked to have her name changed, it sounds as if her mother was accepting of her being trans. Did her mother not realize how messed up she was?

Anyway......let's hope teachers and parents learn more about the warning signs that a student is a potential shooter. We are stuck with the 2nd amendment so this problem isn't going away, but at least if we did more to help identify those with severe mental illnesses that have the potential to lead to violence, some of this might be prevented.

( Most people who are mentally ill are not violent, so don't take my last comment the wrong way )

 

[ZiprHead]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know why this thread has become obsessed with the racial demographics of school shooters, and I rarely agree with Derec, but I looked at 3 different sites and discovered that while about 90% of school shooters are males, they weren't all white males. Most were teenagers, which makes sense since that is a difficult time for many kids as they are not yet adults but are dealing with changing hormones and other developmental issues. I don't know much about this source, but as I said, I found pretty much the same information on several different sites including one that was associated with California colleges. You all can do a few minutes of your own searches to find out the truth. I think t he primary issue is that teenagers are the most likely to commit these crimes. Were they bullied? Were they budding psychopaths? Why do so many have access to guns? We don't know all the reasons or have all the answers. One source had the years of these shootings and they went all the way back to the late 50s or early 60s. We weren't bombarded with 24 hour news back then, so perhaps we didn't hear much about those shootings. I know I didn't. We have failed those who suffer from severe mental illnesses as well as from being bullied at school.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...cial-Ethnic-Group-Percentage-N_tbl3_308401952

View attachment 51944

I see nothing in that that addresses the standard problem of school shooting vs shooting at a school. The numbers in your article total to 64 incidents--but by the 4+/indiscriminate standard I can't find even half that many cases going back 75 years. Thus I suspect your data is contaminated by events where the school was simply an uninvolved location, not a target. (Say, gang fight in the parking lot.) And the demographics of mass shooters do not match the demographics of murderers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Exactly what do you fail to comprehend about the CDC statement that firearms

No, it's what you fail to comprehend. I think your stat actually applies to a subset but it doesn't really matter as the real problem with it is that most of those are gang related.

No one, afaik, has asserted that ALL school shooters are white or make. But the overwhelming majority of school shooters are males and a majority are white.

The only reason that is of any importance in this discussion is that Derec likes to include other types of mass shootings such as gang shootings to ‘prove’ that whites are not more often school shooters.

I don't think it's Derec so much as the data in general. Standard thing with a problem--you make it look as big as possible to attract more effort at solving it. That's why the huge disparity between 4+ dead/indiscriminate cases and 4+ dead cases.

I actually agree with you on the demographics of school shooters.