Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Derec]

So what is the CRC definition of a child?

Irrelevant to the reality that teenagers are objectively different from actual children.

To suggest that seventeen year olds are not children is to fly in the face of international law.

Most countries' laws treat teenagers differently from actual children. As they should.

That the USA frequently denies children their right to be treated as children - the insane "tried as an adult" provision of US legal systems - is simply more evidence, if more were needed, that the USA is a third-world country in a Gucci belt.

This has nothing to do with the (very sensible imho) ability to try minors as adults in certain circumstances.
This has to do with acknowledging that 7 year-olds behave differently than how 17 year-olds behave.

Whether or not you want to try them as adults, 17 year-olds get shot dead at a rate almost thirty (30) times higher than 7 year-olds because of how they behave. I.e. rob people, join gangs, do drive-bys. And thus lumping those two age groups together is foolishness. No matter what you or CRC say.

When you lump in teenagers with children in order to inflate your numbers - implicitly pretending that all those numbers are due to things like school shooting - you are being dishonest. And we cannot solve these problems by being dishonest or by referring to meaningless legalisms.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Oh well, if we can’t stop all violence why try stopping any at all?

Nobody says that we should not look for ways to reduce violence.

But being disingenuous about data, like lumping 17 year-olds with 7 year-olds is not the way to achieve much of anything.
Neither is pretending that banning "scary"-looking guns like AR15s will reduce overall gun death rates in any meaningful way.

And it is also disingenuous to state that seeking any kind of reasonable gun laws is the same as banning all guns.

And I would claim that reducing any number of deaths is meaningful if it can be done with essentially no meaningful impact on the rights of gun owners.

I do not find it compelling when I hear the argument that goes like “ no point in restricting guns in any way because they’ll just find a way”. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument and one that the right wing never employs when they want to ban or restrict something they don’t Like. So it also drips with hypocrisy, which I loathe.

 

[Derec]

And it is also disingenuous to state that seeking any kind of reasonable gun laws is the same as banning all guns.

No, but Dems are their worst enemies there.

And I would claim that reducing any number of deaths is meaningful if it can be done with essentially no meaningful impact on the rights of gun owners.

Yes, but when you speak like Biden is speaking or when you proclaim that "hell yes, we are going to take away your AR15s" (β 2019) that is anything but action "with essentially no meaningful impact on the rights of gun owners".

I do not find it compelling when I hear the argument that goes like “ no point in restricting guns in any way because they’ll just find a way”. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument and one that the right wing never employs when they want to ban or restrict something they don’t Like. So it also drips with hypocrisy, which I loathe.

I think we need to focus on the person, not the type of gun. I agree with you that sensible gun laws are needed, but I think Dems are getting in their own way over and over again.

 

[Toni]

So what is the CRC definition of a child?

Irrelevant to the reality that teenagers are objectively different from actual children.

To suggest that seventeen year olds are not children is to fly in the face of international law.

Most countries' laws treat teenagers differently from actual children.

That the USA frequently denies children their right to be treated as children - the insane "tried as an adult" provision of US legal systems - is simply more evidence, if more were needed, that the USA is a third-world country in a Gucci belt.

This has nothing to do with the (very sensible imho) ability to try minors as adults in certain circumstances.
This has to do with how 7 year-olds behave vs. how 17 year-olds behave.

Whether or not you want to try them as adults, 17 year-olds get shot dead at a rate almost thirty (30) times higher than 7 year-olds because of how they behave. I.e. rob people, join gangs, do drive-bys. And thus lumping those two age groups together is foolishness. No matter what you or CRC say.

I realize this is not something you are likely to consider but:

The reason that so many more 17 year olds end up shot--for any reason you care to name is that too many people like you believe that 'big enough' is the same thing as 'old enough.' It's not. It's just fucking not.

If you want to start talking about how much of human history, 17 year olds were treated as adults and had children and worked to support their families, you'd a) be wrong b) be conflating working to support their families with being treated as adults and c)be conflating being able to reproduce with it being wise, physically, emotionally, socially, economically to reproduce at 17 or younger.

You'd also be neglecting to mention that throughout most of human history, life expectancy was under 65 and frankly was under 45 for most of it, few people learned to read, bathed, traveled more than 25 miles from where they were born, rode in a car or an airplane or typed on a computer.

17 year olds are not adults-not physically mature, not intellectually or socially or psychologically mature. They do not possess the ability to engage in long term thinking they way that they will at 25.

But so fucking what? What does it say about society that has people in it who are completely fine with writing off 17 year olds' deaths, and are perfectly fine with the fact that maybe a few hundred elementary aged children die in gun violence as simply meh, collateral damage? Why would we accept such disordered, narcissic, sociopathic 'thinking' to actually make decisions about how society should function?

 

[Toni]

And it is also disingenuous to state that seeking any kind of reasonable gun laws is the same as banning all guns.

No, but Dems are their worst enemies there.

And I would claim that reducing any number of deaths is meaningful if it can be done with essentially no meaningful impact on the rights of gun owners.

Yes, but when you speak like Biden is speaking or when you proclaim that "hell yes, we are going to take away your AR15s" (β 2019) that is anything but action "with essentially no meaningful impact on the rights of gun owners".

I do not find it compelling when I hear the argument that goes like “ no point in restricting guns in any way because they’ll just find a way”. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument and one that the right wing never employs when they want to ban or restrict something they don’t Like. So it also drips with hypocrisy, which I loathe.

I think we need to focus on the person, not the type of gun. I agree with you that sensible gun laws are needed, but I think Dems are getting in their own way over and over again.

Look upthread at the graph in the link I provided and see how the gun deaths of children have exploded in the last 20 years. Then try to demonstrate that the number and type of weapons is not responsible for the deaths of thousands of children.

And thanks for the Biden quote. He's right. There is no single rationale or socially redeeming value in semiautomatic weapons except for the profit of gun manufacturers. And the pocketbooks of the NRA. And to help impotent men feel potent again.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And it is also disingenuous to state that seeking any kind of reasonable gun laws is the same as banning all guns.

No, but Dems are their worst enemies there.

And I would claim that reducing any number of deaths is meaningful if it can be done with essentially no meaningful impact on the rights of gun owners.

Yes, but when you speak like Biden is speaking or when you proclaim that "hell yes, we are going to take away your AR15s" (β 2019) that is anything but action "with essentially no meaningful impact on the rights of gun owners".

And if you catch me speaking like that then let me know. If you read my posts you’ll see that I seek a rational, nuanced discussion of gun control laws. It’s not my fault Biden says whatever he says, but if you don’t like it then that’s not an excuse for anyone else to give up on trying to find reasonable Solution. If the republicans aren’t seeking solutions because of what the democrats say then that’s a grade school mentality not worthy of respect.

I do not find it compelling when I hear the argument that goes like “ no point in restricting guns in any way because they’ll just find a way”. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument and one that the right wing never employs when they want to ban or restrict something they don’t Like. So it also drips with hypocrisy, which I loathe.

I think we need to focus on the person, not the type of gun. I agree with you that sensible gun laws are needed, but I think Dems are getting in their own way over and over again.

Fine. Then what is the Republicans’ solutions? I hear them talk about mental health when it comes to mass Shootings but where are their policies about mental health?

Where are their sensible policies about gun restrictions?

 

[Derec]

The reason that so many more 17 year olds end up shot--for any reason you care to name is that to]o many people like you believe that 'big enough' is the same thing as 'old enough.' It's not. It's just fucking not.

Like me? No, it's not because of people like me. I did not tell them to join gangs, or rob people, or any of the things getting teenagers shot. They are making those choices themselves.

If you want to start talking about how much of human history,

No, I do not want to talk about history. I am talking about here and now.

17 year olds are not adults-not physically mature, not intellectually or socially or psychologically mature. They do not possess the ability to engage in long term thinking they way that they will at 25.

A 17 year old is not quite an adult, but he or she is not a child either. At 17, a person is much more like a 25 year old legal adult, both physically and mentally, then they are to a 9 year old. Even though the difference is age is 8 years in both cases.
Which is why it is so nonsensical to lump children and teenagers together.

But so fucking what? What does it say about society that has people in it who are completely fine with writing off 17 year olds' deaths, and are perfectly fine with the fact that maybe a few hundred elementary aged children die in gun violence as simply meh, collateral damage? Why would we accept such disordered, narcissic, sociopathic 'thinking' to actually make decisions about how society should function?

Who is writing it off? But they are different problems, requiring different solutions.
Think about that 12 year old who got shot when some of the teens in the group he was in opened fire at a 15 year old (he died too).
The group was burglarizing cars, according to the 12 year-old's parents. But too many in today's society want to downplay such criminal behavior by minors. So it escalates.

Like that 13 year old who hijacked several people in New Orleans at gunpoint and the corrupt mayor lobbied for him to get no jail time. What message do you think that sends to young people? And is it any surprise they escalate their criminal behavior once they see they can get away with it?

But let me ask you: what do you think is to be gained by pretending that small children are the same thing as 15-17 year old almost adults? Do you think we can reduce gun violence by pretending there is no difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old but a huge one between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?

 

[bilby]

What does it say about society that has people in it who are completely fine with writing off 17 year olds' deaths, and are perfectly fine with the fact that maybe a few hundred elementary aged children die in gun violence as simply meh, collateral damage?

So far, the "discussion" here boils down to:

"Children are dying!"

"No they aren't, most of them are teenagers. Of the thousands of dead each year, only a few hundred are really children"

I wonder if anyone can spot the flaw in that "rebuttal".

 

[Derec]

Look upthread at the graph in the link I provided and see how the gun deaths of children have exploded in the last 20 years. Then try to demonstrate that the number and type of weapons is not responsible for the deaths of thousands of children.

That chart lumps all minors together. Since the reason minors of different ages get shot are very different, you cannot tell, from that chart, what may be driving the increase. For example, if you see a big jump in teenagers getting shot but not actual children, that would suggest that it is teenagers engaging in violent crime - often within gangs - that is to blame.

In other words, you need more granular data.
The chart also does not disaggregate by the type of firearm. So how can you make any conclusions as to that?

And thanks for the Biden quote. He's right. There is no single rationale or socially redeeming value in semiautomatic weapons except for the profit of gun manufacturers. And the pocketbooks of the NRA. And to help impotent men feel potent again.

So basically you are disproving Shadowy Man. You are not after reasonable gun laws, you are a gun grabber.

 

[Derec]

"Children are dying!"

Bombs are flying
People are dying
Children are crying
Politicians are lying too.

Cancer is killing
Texaco's spilling
The whole world's gone to hell
But how are you?

"No they aren't, most of them are teenagers. Of the thousands of dead each year, only a few hundred are really children"

To solve any problem, you need good data. Garbage in, garbage out.

What's wrong with having accurate data? Rather than inflated data designed to make an emotional point?

 

[bilby]

If someone is shot dead, they're no less dead if they were in a gang at the time.

Teenagers get involved with criminal gangs in lots of countries; But only in the US is this routinely a fatal error.

 

[bilby]

"Children are dying!"

Bombs are flying
People are dying
Children are crying
Politicians are lying too.

Cancer is killing
Texaco's spilling
The whole world's gone to hell
But how are you?

"No they aren't, most of them are teenagers. Of the thousands of dead each year, only a few hundred are really children"

To solve any problem, you need good data. Garbage in, garbage out.

What's wrong with having accurate data? Rather than inflated data designed to make an emotional point?

Nothing. Yet instead, we are getting loads of FUD about how the data presented are valueless, and ZERO "accurate data" to use instead.

"Thousands are dying!"

"That's not an accurate figure"

"OK, then how many are dying?"

"What's wrong with having accurate data? Rather than inflated data designed to make an emotional point?"

"Gee, thanks for that clarification"

 

[Derec]

And if you catch me speaking like that then let me know.

Fair enough.

Fine. Then what is the Republicans’ solutions?

They have none.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And if you catch me speaking like that then let me know.

Fair enough.

Fine. Then what is the Republicans’ solutions?

They have none.

Indeed.

 

[Patooka]

What does it say about society that has people in it who are completely fine with writing off 17 year olds' deaths, and are perfectly fine with the fact that maybe a few hundred elementary aged children die in gun violence as simply meh, collateral damage?

So far, the "discussion" here boils down to:

"Children are dying!"

"No they aren't, most of them are teenagers. Of the thousands of dead each year, only a few hundred are really children"

I wonder if anyone can spot the flaw in that "rebuttal".

The fact that mass shootings are no longer limited to schools? I mean seriously, that's so 1990s. I mean seriously fuck children. Now days mass shootings happen at cinemas, synagogues, even country music concerts. Yet apparently there's no rush to ban weapons that are bought solely for the purpose of cosplaying Blackhawk Down.

And kindly fuck all the way off with any semantic, "but civilian weapons aren't fully auto or burst fire", bullshit.

 

[ZiprHead]

But being disingenuous about data, like lumping 17 year-olds with 7 year-olds is not the way to achieve much of anything.

True, because 17 year olds have far less value than 7 year olds.

 

[Elixir]

Irrelevant to the reality that teenagers are objectively different from actual children.

Also irrelevant to the reality that infants are different from toddlers are different from pre-teens are different from pubescent teens are different from …
HEY! Waitaminit! EVERYONE is different from everyone else, so guns can only ever kill one person per category!
problem solved! All hail the genius of Derec!! !!!!!!!

 

[Politesse]

Party of Death.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When you lump in teenagers with children in order to inflate your numbers - implicitly pretending that all those numbers are due to things like school shooting - you are being dishonest. And we cannot solve these problems by being dishonest or by referring to meaningless legalisms.

So is "data" the new red herring for reasons why we can't stop something that seems endemic only in the US (first world nation wise)?

The data indicates the number of mass killings in public is much higher in the US than the rest of the first world (a first world that has the same access to media and other excuses used to explain why we have these shootings). The data also says we have a lot more mass killings in schools than the rest of the first world.

If this isn't enough to act... and one wants to say this is merely a tiny percentage of gun related deaths, please be kind and upfront and tell us that the number of gun deaths from mass killings is within the margin of error of liberty.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You have to understand that when an innocent 7 year old dies it is a tragedy but ten years later when they become a gangbanger they deserve to die.

So, why should some completely unrelated private citizen have to be subjected to a background check or even have any safety training to buy a semi-automatic rifle for insert whatever activity this rifle is useful for here? Just because some teenage thugs are shooting each other?? Please…