Gun nuts’ infuriating craze: Why they want to redefine “school shootings”

[George Oilwell]

For what it’s worth, a school shooting is defined by Wikipedia as “an occurrence in which an individual discharges a gun and that incident takes place at an education institution.” This seems pretty straightforward. There is a shooting at a school; it is a school shooting. But the problem lies in the fact that if this definition is true, then Everytown’s list of school shootings, which are based on true, actual events, is accurate. And if that stands, gun-rights advocates will have a harder time defending their position of not even closing the tiniest of loopholes to make it even a tad more difficult for wannabe school shooters to gain access to guns.

So, what better way to combat this alarming list of school shootings than to redefine the term “school shooting” itself? By doing this, according to gun-rights activists, you knock off, say, 59 of the 74 school shootings, leaving you with only 15 real, true, legitimate school shootings. ONLY 15! That’s nothing. We can live with that, right? Apparently, gun-rights activists can. They sleep at night knowing the country’s lax gun control laws took the lives of numerous students and teachers at only 15 school shootings. The sad thing is, media outlets are now using this new “revised” number.

Gun nuts’ infuriating craze: Why they want to redefine “school shootings”

 

[crispy]

For what it’s worth, a school shooting is defined by Wikipedia as “an occurrence in which an individual discharges a gun and that incident takes place at an education institution.” This seems pretty straightforward. There is a shooting at a school; it is a school shooting. But the problem lies in the fact that if this definition is true, then Everytown’s list of school shootings, which are based on true, actual events, is accurate. And if that stands, gun-rights advocates will have a harder time defending their position of not even closing the tiniest of loopholes to make it even a tad more difficult for wannabe school shooters to gain access to guns.

So, what better way to combat this alarming list of school shootings than to redefine the term “school shooting” itself? By doing this, according to gun-rights activists, you knock off, say, 59 of the 74 school shootings, leaving you with only 15 real, true, legitimate school shootings. ONLY 15! That’s nothing. We can live with that, right? Apparently, gun-rights activists can. They sleep at night knowing the country’s lax gun control laws took the lives of numerous students and teachers at only 15 school shootings. The sad thing is, media outlets are now using this new “revised” number.

Gun nuts’ infuriating craze: Why they want to redefine “school shootings”

Well to be fair, I wouldnt put a gang related shooting at a school in the same category as a 'classic' school shooting. Not that they are any less dangerous though.

 

[TV and credit cards]

List of School Shootings in the United States
Just based on finger scroll, the 2010's ain't feeling so good.

 

[Celldweller]

"It's not a school shooting when someone goes and shoots a specific person on campus. It's a shooting that happens to take place at school."

It isn't manslaughter when a drunk driver smashes into a specific pedestrian. It's manslaughter that happened to take place on a street.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They do have something of a point.

Consider the first example: A suicide. Is that really a school shooting??

 

[EricK]

Why is "school shooting" a specific category for which it is important to keep separate statistics?

To pick one of the examples from the article: A person enters their ex-spouse's place of employment and shoots them. Why does it matter if that takes place in an educational establishment or not?

In fact, based on the article attached to that tweet (http://www.newschannel5.com/story/6834915/schools-react-to-asst-principals-shooting-death), it doesn't even appear to have taken place in the school, nor during term time. So it certainly shouldn't count in this statistic anyway. But if it had taken place in school, during term time, it still seems that it should be placed in the "crazed ex" statistic, and not in the "school shooting" one.

 

[Ford]

Well to be fair, I wouldnt put a gang related shooting at a school in the same category as a 'classic' school shooting. Not that they are any less dangerous though.

I'm gonna kind of go in the other direction.

I don't think we should discount a shooting just because it is gang related. Gun violence is gun violence, and what the "gun nuts" are trying to do is pare down the definition to the point where it doesn't even exist anymore.

Kid shoots another kid? Sorry, doesn't count if it is "gang related." Kid gets shot in an accidental discharge of a firearm? Sorry, that's a "safety issue." Bunch of kids get shot by a crazed gunman? "Hey, did we mention we support mental health screenings?" Whenever anyone tries to talk about possible solutions to gun violence, the gun lobby whittles away at the definition so that only shootings by lawful gun owners are on the table, which can then be easily dismissed as mental health problems or "that person wasn't a real responsible law-abiding gun owner after all."

 

[Nexus]

Why is "school shooting" a specific category for which it is important to keep separate statistics?

It has the best rhetorical potential for anti-gun nuts. They want to increase the levels of fear and paranoia regarding guns and amplify the perception of danger they pose. Its really just a sub-type of a "think of the children" plea.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is "school shooting" a specific category for which it is important to keep separate statistics?

Because it's an emotional argument used to support the gun-banners.

To pick one of the examples from the article: A person enters their ex-spouse's place of employment and shoots them. Why does it matter if that takes place in an educational establishment or not?

In fact, based on the article attached to that tweet (http://www.newschannel5.com/story/6834915/schools-react-to-asst-principals-shooting-death), it doesn't even appear to have taken place in the school, nor during term time. So it certainly shouldn't count in this statistic anyway. But if it had taken place in school, during term time, it still seems that it should be placed in the "crazed ex" statistic, and not in the "school shooting" one.

I didn't read far enough to see that one. It's clear the gun-banners are the ones playing with the definitions!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well to be fair, I wouldnt put a gang related shooting at a school in the same category as a 'classic' school shooting. Not that they are any less dangerous though.

I'm gonna kind of go in the other direction.

I don't think we should discount a shooting just because it is gang related. Gun violence is gun violence, and what the "gun nuts" are trying to do is pare down the definition to the point where it doesn't even exist anymore.

Kid shoots another kid? Sorry, doesn't count if it is "gang related." Kid gets shot in an accidental discharge of a firearm? Sorry, that's a "safety issue." Bunch of kids get shot by a crazed gunman? "Hey, did we mention we support mental health screenings?" Whenever anyone tries to talk about possible solutions to gun violence, the gun lobby whittles away at the definition so that only shootings by lawful gun owners are on the table, which can then be easily dismissed as mental health problems or "that person wasn't a real responsible law-abiding gun owner after all."

I disagree. If you're going to deal with a problem you have little hope of success if you don't understand why it happened in the first place.

A gang shooting at a school is still caused by gangs.

And the reason for the opposition is that the only solutions they talk about are straight from the playbook of the gun banners.

 

[Ford]

If you're going to deal with a problem you have little hope of success if you don't understand why it happened in the first place.

A gang shooting at a school is still caused by gangs.

And the reason for the opposition is that the only solutions they talk about are straight from the playbook of the gun banners.

The general question is, do we have a problem with gun violence? I think so. People are being shot every day in this country. Not all of them make the news, but whether it is a domestic dispute, gang violence, or some random gun nut shooting cops at lunch time, it is still hard to deny we have a problem with people getting shot.

The gun fetishists (if we're going to use - pardon the pun - loaded terms) have no solution to this problem. Some of them apparently feel it isn't a problem at all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But it's still useful to properly categorize the different types of gun violence in order to tailor solutions to different problems. The issue of gang violence is different from the issue of suicide which is different from the issue of domestic abuse which is different from the issue of psychopaths wanting to rack up mass casualties. The fact that those four different things happened to occur within a school isn't a good reason to lump them all together.

 

[Ford]

But it's still useful to properly categorize the different types of gun violence in order to tailor solutions to different problems. The issue of gang violence is different from the issue of suicide which is different from the issue of domestic abuse which is different from the issue of psychopaths wanting to rack up mass casualties.

That's all well and good, so long as the classification is not used to dismiss certain types of gun violence out of hand. "Oh, that shooting happened at a school, but gang members were involved so let's put it in this box over here" and then it is promptly forgotten about. Or in the case of Sandy Hook or Tucson, "oh well that's a mental health issue" and the fact that guns were used in the commission of the act is lost.

The fact that those four different things happened to occur within a school isn't a good reason to lump them all together.

On the other hand, a common factor in all four (hypothetically) is a firearm, so they can certainly all be labeled as gun violence.

I'm saying the solutions should, at some level, address the issue of the weapon at hand. If it is a gang shooting, how did the gang members come by their weapons? How can we keep guns out of the hands of gang members? If it is a psychopath, then how did that person come to have a gun? How can we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? And so on.


Again the OP referenced an article in which a gun rights advocate has chosen to throw out the term "fake school shooting" in several circumstances. That is akin to an alcoholic saying "well I only blew a .07 on the breathalyzer so I wasn't 'really' drinking and driving."

 

[Sabine Grant]

Is there a denial by some in this thread that children represent one of the most vulnerable groups to all sorts of aggression? Are children to be expected to respond to an imminent threat of death (firearms are lethal weapons) or severe harm the way adults will respond? So, in case some are not familiar with the typical profile of a school : several hundreds schooled children from age group which can vary per school from K to 12 with an extreme minority of adults expected to maintain the safety and well being of those children. The "perfect" environment to create a climate of panic with a vast majority of children who cannot under any way shape or form be confused for "little adults" in the way they react or respond to the presence of any individual handling a lethal weapon known as a gun.

That is why they are called "school shooting" : because of the very unique and specific environment which hosts children, children already recognized as one of the 3 most vulnerable groups in our society, vulnerable to a diversity of acts of violence. The 2 other groups being elderly Seniors and handicapped/disabled persons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're going to deal with a problem you have little hope of success if you don't understand why it happened in the first place.

A gang shooting at a school is still caused by gangs.

And the reason for the opposition is that the only solutions they talk about are straight from the playbook of the gun banners.

The general question is, do we have a problem with gun violence? I think so. People are being shot every day in this country. Not all of them make the news, but whether it is a domestic dispute, gang violence, or some random gun nut shooting cops at lunch time, it is still hard to deny we have a problem with people getting shot.

The gun fetishists (if we're going to use - pardon the pun - loaded terms) have no solution to this problem. Some of them apparently feel it isn't a problem at all.

Most of it stems from the drug war insanity. Deal with that then see if we really have a gun problem.

- - - Updated - - -

But it's still useful to properly categorize the different types of gun violence in order to tailor solutions to different problems. The issue of gang violence is different from the issue of suicide which is different from the issue of domestic abuse which is different from the issue of psychopaths wanting to rack up mass casualties. The fact that those four different things happened to occur within a school isn't a good reason to lump them all together.

Yeah, it's like lumping a bunch of diseases as "fever". That doesn't tell the doc anything about treating it.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a denial by some in this thread that children represent one of the most vulnerable groups to all sorts of aggression? Are children to be expected to respond to an imminent threat of death (firearms are lethal weapons) or severe harm the way adults will respond? So, in case some are not familiar with the typical profile of a school : several hundreds schooled children from age group which can vary per school from K to 12 with an extreme minority of adults expected to maintain the safety and well being of those children. The "perfect" environment to create a climate of panic with a vast majority of children who cannot under any way shape or form be confused for "little adults" in the way they react or respond to the presence of any individual handling a lethal weapon known as a gun.

That is why they are called "school shooting" : because of the very unique and specific environment which hosts children, children already recognized as one of the 3 most vulnerable groups in our society, vulnerable to a diversity of acts of violence. The 2 other groups being elderly Seniors and handicapped/disabled persons.

Most of the "kids" who die from gun violence are gangbangers.

And as a general rule, a think-of-the-children argument is almost always wrong.

 

[Ford]

Most of the "kids" who die from gun violence are gangbangers.

And so they're not really important, right?

This is what I'm talking about. The knee-jerk dismissal of gun violence if it happens to a person considered to be slightly less than a full member of society. White kids in a school gunned down? Big problem. Minority kids gunned down? Gang bangers...move along...nothing to see here!

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you're going to deal with a problem you have little hope of success if you don't understand why it happened in the first place.

A gang shooting at a school is still caused by gangs.

And the reason for the opposition is that the only solutions they talk about are straight from the playbook of the gun banners.

The general question is, do we have a problem with gun violence? I think so. People are being shot every day in this country. Not all of them make the news, but whether it is a domestic dispute, gang violence, or some random gun nut shooting cops at lunch time, it is still hard to deny we have a problem with people getting shot.

The gun fetishists (if we're going to use - pardon the pun - loaded terms) have no solution to this problem. Some of them apparently feel it isn't a problem at all.

Most of it stems from the drug war insanity. Deal with that then see if we really have a gun problem.

- - - Updated - - -

But it's still useful to properly categorize the different types of gun violence in order to tailor solutions to different problems. The issue of gang violence is different from the issue of suicide which is different from the issue of domestic abuse which is different from the issue of psychopaths wanting to rack up mass casualties. The fact that those four different things happened to occur within a school isn't a good reason to lump them all together.

Yeah, it's like lumping a bunch of diseases as "fever". That doesn't tell the doc anything about treating it.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a denial by some in this thread that children represent one of the most vulnerable groups to all sorts of aggression? Are children to be expected to respond to an imminent threat of death (firearms are lethal weapons) or severe harm the way adults will respond? So, in case some are not familiar with the typical profile of a school : several hundreds schooled children from age group which can vary per school from K to 12 with an extreme minority of adults expected to maintain the safety and well being of those children. The "perfect" environment to create a climate of panic with a vast majority of children who cannot under any way shape or form be confused for "little adults" in the way they react or respond to the presence of any individual handling a lethal weapon known as a gun.

That is why they are called "school shooting" : because of the very unique and specific environment which hosts children, children already recognized as one of the 3 most vulnerable groups in our society, vulnerable to a diversity of acts of violence. The 2 other groups being elderly Seniors and handicapped/disabled persons.

Most of the "kids" who die from gun violence are gangbangers.

And as a general rule, a think-of-the-children argument is almost always wrong.

so now we should piss on the corpses of children and keep stepping UNLESS they are first deemed virtuous and pure by the Moderate Libertarian Four Point Definition of Worthiness to Live?

 

[laughing dog]

And as a general rule, a think-of-the-children argument is almost always wrong.

From experience, a good rule of thumb is that your pronouncement are almost always wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the "kids" who die from gun violence are gangbangers.

And so they're not really important, right?

This is what I'm talking about. The knee-jerk dismissal of gun violence if it happens to a person considered to be slightly less than a full member of society. White kids in a school gunned down? Big problem. Minority kids gunned down? Gang bangers...move along...nothing to see here!

It is important when people are pulling a think-of-the-children type argument. The reality is that people feel a lot less badly when the victims chose their path than when they were innocents.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Most of the "kids" who die from gun violence are gangbangers.

And so they're not really important, right?

This is what I'm talking about. The knee-jerk dismissal of gun violence if it happens to a person considered to be slightly less than a full member of society. White kids in a school gunned down? Big problem. Minority kids gunned down? Gang bangers...move along...nothing to see here!

It is important when people are pulling a think-of-the-children type argument. The reality is that people feel a lot less badly when the victims chose their path than when they were innocents.

I'm glad the Sandy Hook children were gang bangers. Now I feel their deaths were justified. Thanks!