Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Toni]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Are you condoning that or just saying it isn't that big of a deal? Because poverty and criminals exist in Europe too without the huge number of gun related deaths.

Thanks to gun proliferation, local schools here are looking at metal detectors. Access to guns is so easy in America, anyone can get access to one, no matter what age. Might be easier for some than others, but they are there and they are being taken to school. And we need to start treating schools like prisons because a bunch of people just had to have their fucking guns. Teachers have to practice 'gonna die soon' drills today because people just have to have their guns. Somebody's daughter or son won't come home from school next year, having bled out on the floor of the classroom that was supposed to be safe because guns are more important than their lives.

But please, lecture me more about how wrong these gun banners are. And how America is to be powerless to prevent slaughters in elementary schools. And how we just have to accept these massacres as part of our liberty in this country.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A great deal of study has been done on this and shows quite strongly that the decrease in criminally held guns happens quikly when the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun becomes severe.. IN locales where the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun is an extremely long incarceration, the instances of people walking around with illegal guns drops precipitously, while in places where the risk of walking around with it is weeks or months of jailtime or easy getting off on the charges, there are many more cases.

Your argument is a straw man, because it assumes no action whatsover on sellers (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action whatsoever on penalties for possession (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action on penalties for failure to report a theft of a gun, nor for the inadequate storage/protection of a gun (we have a LOT we could do here.)

But that's not what's being proposed. I'm fine with a heavy sentence for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, assuming they clearly know they are prohibited. (Remember what happened recently with voting in Florida--the state told them they were legal to vote, then arrested them for voting. Set up a system that lets people know where they stand. (And I would make this more broad--if multiple interpretations of a law are possible the defendant gets to choose which applies. The law should not be a gotcha system!))

You aren't doing anything about illegal possession, just throwing roadblocks in the path of legal possession.

It's not difficult. If you haven't got a license, you're prohibited from driving, and you are reasonably expected to know it. If your vehicle isn't registered, you can't use it; And again, you are reasonably expected to know that too.

The same exact process can work in the same exact way for gun licenses.

Your desperation to make this seem impossible is noted and derided.

"Have a license" makes it clear whether you are permitted or not, it meets my requirements so long as you don't play gotcha games like Florida with felons voting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.

And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill, if that were the only criteria they should be legal.

 

[Toni]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.

And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill, if that were the only criteria they should be legal.

Yeah, I've seen the speculative figures, some of which are so obviously inflated that it beggars belief for anyone not brainwashed by the NRA.

Guns in households increase the likelihood of suicide, gun accidents and homicides, especially of any woman in the house. Not that you'd see that as any big deal.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill,

Unless you have some citations this is just an unsupported opinion for which we have no reason to believe is a fact.

Can you provide anything to support this opinion? If you did you wouldn’t need the qualifier “almost certainly”.

And anyway this clumps everything together. I’d be curious about the stats between self defense uses of say the AR-15 versus the number of mass shooting deaths from same weapon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.

And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill, if that were the only criteria they should be legal.

Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.

And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill, if that were the only criteria they should be legal.

Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.

If you want to lump all guns and gun related deaths into a single category then maybe. However, there are reasonable approaches to be taken that can mitigate much of the carnage without unreasonably impacting liberty. We do this with pretty much every other right enumerated in the Constitution, so it seems we could do it with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, we already do since many types of arms are not allowed for the average citizen, so we're really just in a place of negotiation. Bringing up arguments like this, in which no nuance is applied to the situation, feels like bad-faith arguments and will not lead to reasonable solutions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.

If you want to lump all guns and gun related deaths into a single category then maybe. However, there are reasonable approaches to be taken that can mitigate much of the carnage without unreasonably impacting liberty. We do this with pretty much every other right enumerated in the Constitution, so it seems we could do it with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, we already do since many types of arms are not allowed for the average citizen, so we're really just in a place of negotiation. Bringing up arguments like this, in which no nuance is applied to the situation, feels like bad-faith arguments and will not lead to reasonable solutions.

There will be no reasonable solution. I just want some honesty from those that support the 2nd Amendment enough to account away mass school shootings.

 

[Toni]

Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.

If you want to lump all guns and gun related deaths into a single category then maybe. However, there are reasonable approaches to be taken that can mitigate much of the carnage without unreasonably impacting liberty. We do this with pretty much every other right enumerated in the Constitution, so it seems we could do it with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, we already do since many types of arms are not allowed for the average citizen, so we're really just in a place of negotiation. Bringing up arguments like this, in which no nuance is applied to the situation, feels like bad-faith arguments and will not lead to reasonable solutions.

There will be no reasonable solution. I just want some honesty from those that support the 2nd Amendment enough to account away mass school shootings.

Won’t happen. At best we’ll get people urging metal detectors and having armed guards/police in schools and arming teachers.

Because for some people, the right for some to own guns is more important than the right of people, including small children, to live their lives. Maybe because guns are also symbols or virility and masculinity.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.

If you want to lump all guns and gun related deaths into a single category then maybe. However, there are reasonable approaches to be taken that can mitigate much of the carnage without unreasonably impacting liberty. We do this with pretty much every other right enumerated in the Constitution, so it seems we could do it with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, we already do since many types of arms are not allowed for the average citizen, so we're really just in a place of negotiation. Bringing up arguments like this, in which no nuance is applied to the situation, feels like bad-faith arguments and will not lead to reasonable solutions.

There will be no reasonable solution. I just want some honesty from those that support the 2nd Amendment enough to account away mass school shootings.

You mean explicit honesty. We already know it’s what they think based on everything they do say.

They treat gun violence like a natural disaster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.

And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill, if that were the only criteria they should be legal.

Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

 

[Toni]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.

And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill, if that were the only criteria they should be legal.

Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

My apologies for having actual human blood in my veins and believe that preventing the horrific deaths of hundreds of school children would be adequate reason to ban assault weapons. Just like we ban containers of shampoo greater than 3.4 oz. on airplanes because...no one died from shampoo in large bottles on airplanes....

 

[Patooka]

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason.

How many examples around the world would you like me to show you are completely wrong?

 

[Tigers!]

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

An inadequate reason is better than no reason.
How many mass shootings or deaths do you think would be an adequate reason for you to consider than allowing any Tom, Dick or Mary to own a gun may have adverse or unwanted side-effects?

 

[Toni]

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

An inadequate reason is better than no reason.
How many mass shootings or deaths do you think would be an adequate reason for you to consider than allowing any Tom, Dick or Mary to own a gun may have adverse or unwanted side-effects?

Loren doesn’t have children so I’m guessing the number is infinity.

 

[Tigers!]

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

An inadequate reason is better than no reason.
How many mass shootings or deaths do you think would be an adequate reason for you to consider than allowing any Tom, Dick or Mary to own a gun may have adverse or unwanted side-effects?

Loren doesn’t have children so I’m guessing the number is infinity.

Children's deaths tend to have a more visceral effect but any death should be of concern.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

My apologies for having actual human blood in my veins and believe that preventing the horrific deaths of hundreds of school children would be adequate reason to ban assault weapons. Just like we ban containers of shampoo greater than 3.4 oz. on airplanes because...no one died from shampoo in large bottles on airplanes....

You're not addressing my point, just pulling a think-of-the-children argument. Hint: Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always on the wrong side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

An inadequate reason is better than no reason.
How many mass shootings or deaths do you think would be an adequate reason for you to consider than allowing any Tom, Dick or Mary to own a gun may have adverse or unwanted side-effects?

You're taking it as a given that you're right. Saying it's "inadequate" is basically saying it's wrong.

 

[Toni]

Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.

My apologies for having actual human blood in my veins and believe that preventing the horrific deaths of hundreds of school children would be adequate reason to ban assault weapons. Just like we ban containers of shampoo greater than 3.4 oz. on airplanes because...no one died from shampoo in large bottles on airplanes....

You're not addressing my point, just pulling a think-of-the-children argument. Hint: Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always on the wrong side.

Oh bullshit. You just think it’s wrong because it’s not YOUR position.

The only decent society is one which provides the best it is able for its most vulnerable: elderly and young. If society fails in that basic function, it is merely a collection of animals.