Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Worldtraveller]

Hint: Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always on the wrong side.

Hint: One of the times when they are not on the wrong side is when the hazard to the children is their actual death.

Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always about vague and subjective hazards, like "loss of innocence" or "causing nightmares", not "death from gunshot wounds".

I'm thinking more of the if-it-can-save-one-child arguments frequently put forth for things where the costs far exceed the benefits.

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere.
We know the benefit: saving children's (and plenty of adult) lives. The numbers have been posted previously, many times.

Now, you have to spell out the costs. TIA.

 

[Toni]

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?

A 17 year old is much more like a 9 or 10 year old than a 25 year old in terms of ability to think long term, to understand and handle emotions, to plan, to manage feelings. They're just bigger and generally capable of reproduction.

"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?

how about you just look at the broadest stroke of that data: the trend. With the proliferation of guns we have an enormous uptick in deaths of children.

I am old enough to know exactly why it is that 18 year olds are considered adult for some purposes: It’s so they can be drafted and be sent to be killed. Oh, with enough lobbying, they threw in the 18 year old right to vote, more of an appeasement than an actual recognition of the maturity of an 18 year old. Lowering the legal age to consume alcohol didn’t last in most places—because it led to a lot more problems. There is a reason that most motels and vacation rentals do not re t to 18 year olds: they aren’t mature enough.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Also, let's look at another aspect of this: nearly all shooters are male.

Maybe we should only allow women to have guns.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Also, let's look at another aspect of this: nearly all shooters are male.

Maybe we should only allow women to have guns.

Then you’ll be stuck needing to legally define “woman” and we all know where that rabbit hole leads…

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also, let's look at another aspect of this: nearly all shooters are male.

Maybe we should only allow women to have guns.

This is a Trigger Alert... a Level 5 Trigger Alert. Please clear the area as some serious triggering is about to ensue. In a calm and orderly fashion, run for your lives!

 

[atrib]

I think we need to focus on the person, not the type of gun.

And how do we do that? Do we force everyone to take a comprehensive pysch evaluation while hooked up to a lie detector before we allow them to own guns? How do you think that is going to fly? Most law enforcement personnel aren't even required to do that.

I think it is essential to ban the sale of assault rifles, weapons that are designed specifically to efficiently and easily kill large numbers of people using ammo that can penetrate most body armor used by law enforcement. That would be a start. Perhaps implement laws where gun manufacturers are forced to implement certain types of safeguards (slide locks and so on) on handguns, that make it difficult for novice users to use such weapons.

 

[Derec]

Also, let's look at another aspect of this: nearly all shooters are male.

Maybe we should only allow women to have guns.

There is hardly a thread about guns that some radfem like you doesn't make that sexist suggestion.

Of course, plenty of females commit gun crimes. Example:
HPD: 15-year-old girl shot woman in the neck during robbery, carjacking

This is a Trigger Alert... a Level 5 Trigger Alert. Please clear the area as some serious triggering is about to ensue. In a calm and orderly fashion, run for your lives!

Disagreement with a blatantly sexist proposal is not "triggering".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we need to focus on the person, not the type of gun.

And how do we do that?

By not selling them a gun.

 

[Derec]

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.

Not deserve, exactly, but it is often a natural consequence of their actions.
There is a big difference whether somebody who dies is an innocent victim - be they 7, 17 or 77 - or somebody who brought their death upon themselves.
Take this case:
Teen Carjacker Shot, Killed by Concealed Carry License-Holder on Chicago's South Side
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

At approximately 2:09 a.m., a 23-year-old woman was sitting in a parked vehicle when she saw four suspects get out of a black sedan. One of the suspects then tried to open her car door while displaying a gun, police said.
The woman, who according to police is a concealed carry license holder, fired a single shot, striking the suspect in the head.
She then fled on foot from the scene, and another suspect opened fire, striking her in the left arm.
The suspect who had been shot, identified as a 17-year-old male, was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead earlier this week, according to police.

That is very different from an innocent victim. And a 17 year old gun criminal should not be treated as a little child just because he is 17 and not 18. Or 25.

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…

I do not have a problem with background checks. But they should be for all firearms, not just "semiautomatic rifles". Vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, not rifles.
I have a problem with calls to ban certain categories of guns for no good reason.

 

[Derec]

And how do we do that? Do we force everyone to take a comprehensive pysch evaluation while hooked up to a lie detector before we allow them to own guns? How do you think that is going to fly? Most law enforcement personnel aren't even required to do that.

Why immediately jump to something this intrusive? Lie detectors do not really work anyway.
I would be ok with gun licensing that includes a safety course written and practical exam.

But most importantly is to take gun crime seriously. Dems love to talk about banning guns, but are much more forgiving about actual gun criminals.
Somebody who carjacks several people at gunpoint should face jail time even if he was 13 at the time.
Victims speak out after New Orleans mayor supports 13-year-old sentenced for carjacking
That the New Orleans mayor supports the carjacker over his victims exemplifies what is wrong with the contemporary Democratic Party's attitude toward crime, including gun crime.
Or take Daunte Wright. He should not have been shot, of course, and that was an accident. But many on the Left go well beyond that, saying that Potter should not have tried to arrest him either, even though he robbed a woman at gunpoint. He was also eulogized as "Prince of Brooklyn Center". How about we stop glorifying guys like him?

I think it is essential to ban the sale of assault rifles, weapons that are designed specifically to efficiently and easily kill large numbers of people using ammo that can penetrate most body armor used by law enforcement.

Assault rifles are not accessible to most civilians. What ammo do you mean here exactly?

That would be a start. Perhaps implement laws where gun manufacturers are forced to implement certain types of safeguards (slide locks and so on) on handguns, that make it difficult for novice users to use such weapons.

Novice users can be lawful gun users too. And gangbangers can learn to use slide locks pretty easily too. I do not see how this would help much.

 

[Tigers!]

When i refer to children I mean under 18.

Which is a mistake.

Let's rephrase the argument to be "Too many children are dying from bullets or bullet fragments."

Children are different from teenagers though. They should not be lumped together in order to inflate the numbers.

Lets avoid the inane and monumentally stupid discussion as to what gun was used. A BULLET killed those children. A bullet that should not have been fired.

Then why is the go-to solution for Dems always to take away people's AR15s?

Because people are dying needlessly?
Again you fixate on the type of gun. When someone is shot and dies by a gun it does not matter whether they are old, young, adult, child, colour, education. They are dead and a GUN has been the cause of their death. And don't start on the puerile "people kill people, guns don't kill people" nonsense. I am well aware than the gun is the cause of death not the reason of death.
A gun allows more carnage in a shorter time at a greater range. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why millions of Yanks are incapable of comprehending such a basic fact.

Bloody hell Derec - what numbers of deaths is acceptable to you and others each year for the privilege of knaves and fools wandering around thinking they are king Dick?
If hundreds of needless and unnecessary deaths each year is an inadequate reason it still buries "we cannot do anything about it" whinge.

I do not think you can put a particular number on "acceptable deaths". At the same time, it is a fallacy to say that no price (literal or figurative) is too high to pay to prevent even one death of a child. Or a minor.

I also do not whinge. We can, and should, do something to reduce gun deaths. But we need to be honest about data. We need to be honest that easy solutions like a renewed AR15 ban will not do anything.

I am in Australia and as an outsider looking in can say with confidence that you Yanks are doing bugger all to stop needless shooting deaths. Get the guns off the streets and out of the hands of clowns who are incompetent to handle them.
And yes I am glad I live in Australia where at least we have some common sense rules concerning the use of guns. We are not oppressed in the slightest by our inability to go into a store and buy a multi-rounded, sleek, lovely to look at, weapon.

Today is the 10th anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre. Two years ago my favorite niece moved from Australia to just 25kms from there. Her eldest son was talking to me earlier this year and told me that they had started shooter drills at school. He asked why he did not do them in schools in Australia. I could have told him that Yanks, whilst generally good people, had this stupid absurd disease that warps their thinking about guns. But I did not.

 

[Tigers!]

Where are their sensible policies about gun restrictions?

If in the fantasy world to come, a sensible gun policy came out of the mouth of any Yank who would agree with them?

 

[Tigers!]

Also, let's look at another aspect of this: nearly all shooters are male.

Maybe we should only allow women to have guns.

Sadly these days all stupid males would then self-indentify as female and you are back where you started.

 

[Elixir]

To be equated with Epstein merely for pointing out this obvious fact is beyond the pale. Even for you.

Perhaps people are making fun of you for putting forth something that is not only blatantly obvious, but also of trivial bearing on the discussion.
Guess I could be wrong, but that’s sure as hell what it looks like.

 

[Tigers!]

I do not have a problem with background checks. But they should be for all firearms, not just "semiautomatic rifles". Vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, not rifles.

So why are such background checks not implemented? Surely they are regulatory rather than legislatived

I have a problem with calls to ban certain categories of guns for no good reason.

You should have a problem with why certain categories are not banned.

 

[Toni]

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?

A 17 year old is much more like a 9 or 10 year old than a 25 year old in terms of ability to think long term, to understand and handle emotions, to plan, to manage feelings. They're just bigger and generally capable of reproduction. Not only are their brains not developed enough to have a decent handle on long term thinking but they are also being bombarded by an entire milieu of hormones and neurotransmitters that make it more difficult to resist small temptations or emotional outbursts.

It is zero surprise that a 13 year old who lashes out and does something violent repeats these types of offenses without a lot of skilled and caring intervention. If harsh punishments prevented future offenses by the currently punished offender or their cohort, there would be far, far less violent crimes. We know harsh punishment does nothing to prevent further offenses aside from confining the offender making it more difficult for them to reoffend during their imprisonment.

But we know that not all offenders re-offend. Some go on to become productive citizens, which implies that more can go on to become productive citizens.

A LOT of kids, especially teenaged boys, engage in petty theft, fighting, property damage, illegal consumption of various substances and sometimes go joy riding or worse. What is the biggest difference between those who go on to spend a lot of their adulthood in and out of cells and those who go on to college, jobs or careers, marriage, children? A lot of it in this country boils down to color of skin, closely correlated with socioeconomic status. Two kids doing exactly the same thing in different parts of town are often treated very differently because of what they look like and where they live.

The solution is not to start treating all kids harshly. It's to treat all kids with kindness and compassion--and firmness and consistency and fairness. Consequences, not jail sentences.

 

[bilby]

The solution is not to start treating all kids harshly. It's to treat all kids with kindness and compassion--and firmness and consistency and fairness. Consequences, not jail sentences.

^This.

The division between political left and right is, increasingly, one between those who think the world needs more kindness, compassion, and empathy; And those who think the world needs more unkindness, meanness, and selfishness.

In right-wing world, discipline is needed to ensure that people are constrained by rules and laws. But if you've taught people not to be selfish and cruel, harsh discipline is needless. When people break the rules in order to make the world a better place for others, that's a good thing.

 

[Patooka]

So why are such background checks not implemented? Surely they are regulatory rather than legislatived

For that to be effective a federal authority would need to be in charge. In America that would be the ATF. The ATF aren't allowed to record such information.



Fucking ridiculous, I know.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

>Jeffrey Epstein has entered the chat

That what I wrote above is in any way controversial is bad enough. To be equated with Epstein merely for pointing out this obvious fact is beyond the pale. Even for you.

Lighten up, Francis.

 

[Tigers!]

So why are such background checks not implemented? Surely they are regulatory rather than legislatived

For that to be effective a federal authority would need to be in charge. In America that would be the ATF. The ATF aren't allowed to record such information.



Fucking ridiculous, I know.