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

[Nexus]

It is a shooting at a school, which is the logical meaning of "school shooting", so your claim is false.

Language doesn't operate with strict logic but with lexical semantics and inferred meaning. So your claim is false.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The important fact is that no matter how we categorize these shootings, guns played no role in them.

 

[steve_bnk]

It is easy to jump on your high horse and moralize over school shootings. Stock and trade for the left.

Anyone with half a brain will see they are a symptom of a deep social problem. A manifestation not a cause.

Guns today are harder than ever to buy. Up through the 60s you could get guns mail order no questions asked. Changes began with the JFK assassination.

What has changed is the hyper amplification of violence in the news, and immersion in violence in movies, TV, video games, and music.

Remember the old show Gunsmoke? To stay on the air in its era violence in the stories had to have a moral context. A lot of TV today is repetitious gratuitous violence.

If you wish to dispute effects, then you have to explain why mass marketing and mass political adds work by repetition. Young kids are inescapably affected to varying degrees.

If on TV white people routinely called blacks niggers, would anyone not see that it would have a negative influence on young white kids who might think it normal?

You can not support the mass media culture of violence and be outraged when kids progressively get more violent.

The sick nuts are the ones who get entertained by graphic violence. I went to see Natural Born Killers when it came out, I walked out. how could anyone actually enjoy that?

The next time you are getting stimulated by watching violence ask yourself why, and contemplate why someone might actually choose to act it out. Do you think it emotionally healthy to be entertained by violence? If you are a guy does violent movies get you hard, if you are a girl make you horney?

Does a hard body shirtless guy with a gun in a movie hold your attention?

Just providing food for thought....

Culturally IMO pro wrestling is about as culturally bad as it gets. Pure brutality, degradation, sadism, and masochism for its own end of pleasure.

 

[Unbeatable]

You can not support the mass media culture of violence and be outraged when kids progressively get more violent.

IOW, the problem here isn't the second amendment-- it's the first.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is easy to jump on your high horse and moralize over school shootings. Stock and trade for the left.

You are correct, the left totally exploits this by asking questions. Better just to accept this as a fact of life than look for solutions.

Anyone with half a brain will see they are a symptom of a deep social problem. A manifestation not a cause.

Guns today are harder than ever to buy. Up through the 60s you could get guns mail order no questions asked. Changes began with the JFK assassination.

That is true. It is nearly impossible to get a gun in the United States. That is why mass shooters acquired them illegally in every instance.

What has changed is the hyper amplification of violence in the news, and immersion in violence in movies, TV, video games, and music.

Remember the old show Gunsmoke? To stay on the air in its era violence in the stories had to have a moral context. A lot of TV today is repetitious gratuitous violence.

Yes there is only nihilism. No morals or lessons we can learn from watching movies. Guns are impossible to get in the United States. They are not part of the problem. It is video games and single parents on welfare.

If you wish to dispute effects, then you have to explain why mass marketing and mass political adds work by repetition. Young kids are inescapably affected to varying degrees.

Yes, young kids play a video game and this makes them susceptible to the mass shooter philosophy.

If on TV white people routinely called blacks niggers, would anyone not see that it would have a negative influence on young white kids who might think it normal?

You can not support the mass media culture of violence and be outraged when kids progressively get more violent.

The sick nuts are the ones who get entertained by graphic violence. I went to see Natural Born Killers when it came out, I walked out. how could anyone actually enjoy that?

How did you keep from getting a gun and shooting up a shopping mall?

Does a hard body shirtless guy with a gun in a movie hold your attention?

Keep talkin', girlfriend.

Culturally IMO pro wrestling is about as culturally bad as it gets. Pure brutality, degradation, sadism, and masochism for its own end of pleasure.

So now it's pro wrestling. Hmmm

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Now I know why there are so many school shootings in South Korea. It's because they play so much more video games than the US and because guns are even harder to come by.

 

[laughing dog]

It is a shooting at a school, which is the logical meaning of "school shooting", so your claim is false.

Language doesn't operate with strict logic but with lexical semantics and inferred meaning. So your claim is false.

Language does not operate at all, people do. So your observation is irrelevant.

 

[PyramidHead]

Here's an idea: pump money into innovating non-lethal forms of self-defense (tasers, etc.) to the point where they will reliably incapacitate any home invader or street thug without killing them, then ban guns for everybody except law enforcement officers and military personnel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's an idea: pump money into innovating non-lethal forms of self-defense (tasers, etc.) to the point where they will reliably incapacitate any home invader or street thug without killing them, then ban guns for everybody except law enforcement officers and military personnel.

There are nuts out there that think the only reason Obama has instituted martial law is because those nuts have guns.

Which, on a side note, scares the hell out of me that those deluded pricks have guns.

 

[Frikki]

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.

That explains all the gang shootings in my country that has Gangs but very few pistols. If gangs cause shootings why does most of Europe and Japan not have as many shootings? Let me guess not as many bleh people?

 

[PyramidHead]

Here's an idea: pump money into innovating non-lethal forms of self-defense (tasers, etc.) to the point where they will reliably incapacitate any home invader or street thug without killing them, then ban guns for everybody except law enforcement officers and military personnel.

There are nuts out there that think the only reason Obama has instituted martial law is because those nuts have guns.

Which, on a side note, scares the hell out of me that those deluded pricks have guns.

Assuming those nuts are wrong (and I believe you mean "hasn't" instituted martial law), what is the problem with my suggestion?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's an idea: pump money into innovating non-lethal forms of self-defense (tasers, etc.) to the point where they will reliably incapacitate any home invader or street thug without killing them, then ban guns for everybody except law enforcement officers and military personnel.

There are nuts out there that think the only reason Obama has instituted martial law is because those nuts have guns.

Which, on a side note, scares the hell out of me that those deluded pricks have guns.

Assuming those nuts are wrong (and I believe you mean "hasn't" instituted martial law), what is the problem with my suggestion?

Hasn't indeed.

But assuming they are wrong? That isn't too much of a leap.

The problem is, these people think they are the resistance, the only thing standing between liberty and dictatorship. They don't want guns to protect their homes from actual threats, but to protect against Democrats and RINOs.

 

[PyramidHead]

I agree, but Loren was disparaging solutions "straight from the playbook of the gun banners." My suggestion is pretty much to ban all civilian guns after we figure out how to make cheap, user-friendly alternatives that don't kill (or are no better at killing than, say, a kitchen knife). I was just curious what Loren thought the downside to that idea was, other than the delusions of those liberty-warrior types.

 

[Malintent]

For the purpose of adressing the alleged increase in rate of children bringing guns into school for the prupose of killing other children, it is important to call a spade a spade.

if a child brings a gun into school to show his friends and there is no reason to beleive that there was ever any intent to harm anyone.... that is not a "school shooting" (or any kind of shooting at all).
If a child goes to the school property off hours when no one is there, regardless of how the gun is discharged, that is not a "school shooting".
If a cop chases a criminal onto school property, and guns are fired... that is also not a "school shooting".

Any case where a gun is not pointed at another person when discharged is not a "shooting" of any kind.

So in the interest of calling a spade a spade you are not willing to call just any shooting in a school a "school shooting?"

Correct. Just like I wouldn't call a house with a dog in it a "doghouse". "School shooting" is intended to mean (is used to promote a specific concern) "an attack, by gunfire, on school children, in a shcool, during class". Not "discharging any firearm within x miles of a school at any time for any reason".

And bringing a gun to school is not a problem unless it is actually fired at a child by a child?

It is a different problem. Which would be obvious to any rational person without some agenda that needs artificail bolstering.. school shootings are not good. They are some kind of problem. Are they a BIG, daily or hourly problem that needs immediate military occupation to stop the millions of slaughtered children every day? Can you see the difference?

And you say these things to convince us that you have a rational grip on this problem?

No, I say these things to attempt to reign in the attempt to elevate a problem to a BIG problem

Try again.

Done.

 

[Nexus]

It is a shooting at a school, which is the logical meaning of "school shooting", so your claim is false.

Language doesn't operate with strict logic but with lexical semantics and inferred meaning. So your claim is false.

Language does not operate at all, people do. So your observation is irrelevant.

There you go again with your meaningless posts and rhetorical shenanigans.

 

[Malintent]

I changed my mind... I'm going there....

If you want to claim that any discharge of a weapon, in or near a school, for any reason whatsoever, is a "school shooting" to be grouped together with the likes of Colombine, etc.. Then you must also have the same black and white views on:

Show

Abortion = Murder
Something that can (by some definition) be considered "Alive", is no longer considered "Alive" due to the actions taken by an individual. Therefore murder.
Black and white definitions are a slippery slope.

 

[arkirk]

Is it just possible that "God" wants the school shootings to continue so he numbs our minds and helps us find excuses for the inexcusable? Of course not! But the NRA is a master mindfuck organization dedicated to the production and universal armament of society. If they cannot keep those factories in Massachusetts and Connecticut running full bore, people will lose their jobs! They need a new industry in that neck of the woods.

 

[Earl IV]

Well, if it's a legitimate school shooting, the faculty has ways of dealing with that ...

Oh wait, what were we talking about again?


Sent from portable distraction device

 

[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.

That explains all the gang shootings in my country that has Gangs but very few pistols. If gangs cause shootings why does most of Europe and Japan not have as many shootings? Let me guess not as many bleh people?

You don't have gangs anything like we do.

Besides, quit focusing so much on guns--what's important is deaths, not the means of the deaths.

Focusing on guns is like the computer that supposedly suggested removing the top and bottom stairs to cut accidents.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, but Loren was disparaging solutions "straight from the playbook of the gun banners." My suggestion is pretty much to ban all civilian guns after we figure out how to make cheap, user-friendly alternatives that don't kill (or are no better at killing than, say, a kitchen knife). I was just curious what Loren thought the downside to that idea was, other than the delusions of those liberty-warrior types.

If you can make them, fine. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, though.

- - - Updated - - -

So in the interest of calling a spade a spade you are not willing to call just any shooting in a school a "school shooting?"

Correct. Just like I wouldn't call a house with a dog in it a "doghouse". "School shooting" is intended to mean (is used to promote a specific concern) "an attack, by gunfire, on school children, in a shcool, during class". Not "discharging any firearm within x miles of a school at any time for any reason".

I would count an attack on teachers at school a school shooting.

To me the important characteristic is the target selection criteria--is the shooter aiming at the person because they are at the school?

 

[Frikki]

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.

That explains all the gang shootings in my country that has Gangs but very few pistols. If gangs cause shootings why does most of Europe and Japan not have as many shootings? Let me guess not as many bleh people?

You don't have gangs anything like we do.

Besides, quit focusing so much on guns--what's important is deaths, not the means of the deaths.

Focusing on guns is like the computer that supposedly suggested removing the top and bottom stairs to cut accidents.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, but Loren was disparaging solutions "straight from the playbook of the gun banners." My suggestion is pretty much to ban all civilian guns after we figure out how to make cheap, user-friendly alternatives that don't kill (or are no better at killing than, say, a kitchen knife). I was just curious what Loren thought the downside to that idea was, other than the delusions of those liberty-warrior types.

If you can make them, fine. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, though.

- - - Updated - - -

So in the interest of calling a spade a spade you are not willing to call just any shooting in a school a "school shooting?"

Correct. Just like I wouldn't call a house with a dog in it a "doghouse". "School shooting" is intended to mean (is used to promote a specific concern) "an attack, by gunfire, on school children, in a shcool, during class". Not "discharging any firearm within x miles of a school at any time for any reason".

I would count an attack on teachers at school a school shooting.

To me the important characteristic is the target selection criteria--is the shooter aiming at the person because they are at the school?

So it's all about the bleh people.

Access to firearms, especially pistols, drives violence. That is why you see so many shootings in the States but so few in Canada. Both have a bunch of firearms but only one has easily available pistols and high capacity semi autos.