New school shooting, leftist response

@Urwrong

As bad as schooling shootings are, and they are horrific, let’s put things into perspective a bit:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/15/us/school-shootings-sandy-hook-parkland.html

438, say 450 people were shot in the last 6 years in school shootings.
That’s 75 a year.
There are about 300 million people in the USA.
So the odds of someone or their kid being shot in a school shooting is about 1 in 4 million annually.
And 138, say 150 were shot dead, that’s 30 a year, that’s about 1 in 10 million annually, or in other words, it’s extremely unlikely someone or their kid will be shot (dead) in a school shooting.

And while that in itself doesn’t mean semi-autos shouldn’t be banned, and other guns further restricted, I think many people have been given the impression school and other spree shootings are far more frequent than they actually are, and this false impression needs to be dispelled.

As bad as the USA is, it could still get a hell of a lot worse, millions of people still risk life and limb annually trying to make it to the USA and other western nations from the third world.
I mean tell that to the Gypsies, Jews, intellectuals, Gays, and people with physical and/or psychological disabilities who survived Nazi Germany, the USA is a fascist dictatorship, or the tens of millions who lost their family at the hands of Stalin and Mao.
The USA is quasi-fascist, but it’s not outright fascist, in many important respects, we still have a ways to go.

Comparing national health care, insurance and social security, or moving more in the direction of Canada and Scandinavia economically, to a fascist dictatorship, is essentially comparing apples to oranges.

Many conservatives lump gun control in with the ‘pro-socialist agenda’.
Perhaps you’re more part of that agenda than you think, unbeknownst to you, or care to admit.
It’s funny you seem to argue for liberty over security and equality on principle, except here.
Don’t you think that if sacrificing liberty for security can be beneficial here, that it can be beneficial in other areas?

And socialism has nothing to do with the military, anymore than capitalism does.
The USA is still one of, if not the most capitalistic nation on earth, and it’s also the most militaristic nation on earth, it’s been the most militaristic nation on earth for nearly a century.

“Oh school shootings aren’t so bad.”

That is not a productive counter-argument. Imagine being in the school, being one of those kids, during a spree-shooting. Empathize a little bit, if you can.

Would you tell the victims and survivors “but it’s not so bad”?

This is a new beast to grapple with, similar to the terrorism of 9-11. Appropriate responses should be expected. You, like Urgod, and like many other in this thread, are responding with apathy, “oh, it’s not so bad”. Yeah, well, I don’t think the kids who go through these spree-shootings will agree with you, nor their families. Furthermore, you and others aren’t thinking ahead. What if, god forbid, someday you have children. Would you feel safe with them in school? Do you feel safe in movie theaters, outdoor concerts? Public venues? With the rate of spree-shooting as it currently is, there’s no sign it will be slowing down, or that it couldn’t happen anywhere. It is happening anywhere. Shopping malls. Movie theaters. Outdoor concerts. Elmentary schools. High schools. No more “safe-spaces” for modern society.

It seems that nobody but me is willing to look at the actual causes and sources. It’s a relatively new phenomenon, in terms of size, scope, and damage. Society is turning on itself. Kids are bringing semi-automatic rifles to school to gun down as many other kids as they can.

I’m becoming more aware of my opposition and its ignorance. You, are unwilling to look at these incidents and occurrences. You are unwilling to be affected by them, to imagine them, to imagine the victims or the perpetrators.

This is a once-sided conversation.

I should have learned my lesson by now…

That’s like saying the anti-gun crowd are against people using guns to defend themselves and others against other people with guns or other weapons, and so, standing with criminals who initiate violence.
While guns make it easier to kill people, they also make it easier to kill people who kill people, so without doing thorough statistical analyses, you can’t rationally say, well it’d be worth it just to have no guns, but you can emote.
Guns can also level the playing field, suddenly people who’d otherwise be relatively defenseless, like women, the elderly, the disabled, people caught off guard in their homes or businesses and so on, can have just as much power as a group of big, violent thugs.

What’s the purpose of a gun, except to kill?

It’s been a while since I’ve researched gun violence, but from what I remember, very few people kill using semi-autos, with the exception of several spree shootings annually, defensively, or offensively, the vast, majority of shootings are committed with ordinary guns.
While I don’t know what the statistics are, I don’t see why it’s impossible that people can use AR-15s defensively.

Gloominary, the United States is a totalitarian [democratic\ republican in name only] corporate military police state. While being a supporter of a dictatorship myself I want one not like this but instead the complete opposite. The one I want benefits the many whereas this one we live under benefits only the few.

This is a purely emotional, rhetorical argument.
Just because a tragedy occurs, doesn’t mean anything can, or ought to be done about it.
It’s tragic people inadvertently kill themselves and others while drinking and driving, doesn’t mean anything can be done about it, doesn’t mean prohibiting alcohol will do any good.
As we all know, all’s it did during the 1920s was drive it underground, and people actually wound up consuming more of the stuff than they otherwise would have, it brought the criminal underworld into alcohol, where it wasn’t before, and made the Italian, and Jewish mafias very rich and powerful, helped organized crime further establish itself in the US.
Whle banning guns reduced gun violence in places like the UK, Mexico has tough gun laws, but all’s they did was drive guns underground, Mexico still has loads of guns and gun violence.
What works in one country may not work in another, the USA isn’t a European country, it’s very unruly.
And you might just be taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and into the hands of criminals, allowing them to monopolize them.

I already know the answer. I admit that I was leading you.

People don’t use AR-15s to defend themselves, except in the military. There are no practical situations in the US that a-n-y-b-o-d-y uses a semi-automatic rifle to defend themselves. Thus, they are purely offensive weapons. And the stats prove this. AR-15s are used to rack up a huge body-count, by spree-shooters, in places where people are both defenseless and completely off guard. Shopping malls, movie theaters, outdoor concerts, elementary schools, high schools.

The crux of this matter is not “put a security guard in a high school” as that only solves one area of the above. You cannot put security guards everywhere. And the nature of the spree-shooter, is to cause as much damage as possible, where there are not armed guards. (As-if the armed guards would not be the first ones ambushed and killed anyway, removing their effectiveness outright???)

Again, I’m the only one thinking about these issues, clearly. Nobody is putting any brainpower into this. Again, as I mentioned, maybe another dozen more spree-shootings are required before anybody else even puts a few thoughts into it??

Isn’t the topic owed at least an inkling of insight? No? Well then, let’s forget the whole ordeal and wait for the next one.

How long will we have to wait? A year? No, too unrealistic? 6 months? 3 months? 1 month?

Kennesaw, GA has mandatory gun ownership law on the books

[i]Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation, mandating gun ownership, in response to Morton Grove, Illinois’ law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[21]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.[/i] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Murder = 1 in 10 years.

Family Circle rates Kennesaw as one of the top 10 places to raise a family familycircle.com/family-fun … -families/

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the US.

Murders >400 per year.

Guns are not the problem; it’s something else. Obviously, without access to guns, kids couldn’t shoot-up schools, but how do you propose confiscating all the guns? The problem cited in Chicago is people bringing guns from the outside into the city. So it seems the only ones with guns are the criminals who disregard the law. Unless you’re going to exhaustively search every residence in the US, you’re not going to get all the guns. You’re barking up the wrong tree… the problem is something else.

Guns are even more necessary and important than cars. So my point is even stronger than it appears at face value.

Just another triggered leftist reactionary. Yawn.

Ive always loved Georgia. Now I really want to live there.
How awesome is this.

Haha yes. Ive identified this moron before has having ebola of the mind. Chemically castrated by the ideas he has swallowed, he craps out his own nutsack through his mouth.

The purpose of a gun is to kill. The purpose of a car is to travel from point A to point B.

Tell me again how being pro-car means that you are pro-fatal car accidents. I want to watch you try to reason and think, again. It’s funny!

You better stick to meaningless, pointless, one-liners. Innuendos, “I am sooo smart”, are your strong suit. Stick with those.

Imply you have an argument, or that you can reason. I want to see it.

Please keep it civil gents.

In 2011, just 323 people were killed with rifles, including ‘assault’ rifles, according to the FBI.
Apparently it’s impossible to determine how many of these kills were committed by assault rifles, because assault rifles aren’t a legit category of weapon, which also means it’s impossible to determine how many people used assault rifles in defense of themselves and others, I mean I’m sure it’s happening, at least occasionally, why wouldn’t people be using them in defense?

http://liberalguns.blogspot.ca/2013/01/how-many-people-are-killed-by-assault.html

If say half of these kills were committed with ‘assault’ rifles, that’s about 160 a year.
There’s about 300 million people in the US, so the odds of being killed by one are about 1 out of 2 million.

And even if we banned assault rifles, all, most or at least many of those some odd 160 kills a year may end up being committed with other rifles, or with other guns, or with other weapons, or with hands and feet anyway.
I mean in 2011, 728 people were killed with hands and feet, 1694 were killed with knives, so hands, feet and knives are much deadlier for they’re more readily and easily available.
So let’s say just 80 of those 160 kills were preventable, banning assault rifles would only prevent about 80 kills.

And how many of those some odd 80 kills a year were committed by gangsters, who would’ve probably got their hands on one anyway, one way or another, with or without an assault weapons ban, because they’re criminals with no respect for law and order, and in many cases using them to kill other gangsters for that matter?
Again, let’s just say half.
Then that takes the number down even further, from 80 to 40 preventable deaths.

I mean according to google, approximately 3500 people inadvertently drown a year in the USA, in non-boat related drownings.
Should we ban recreational swimming?
I mean it’s a completely unnecessary activity, like owning an assault rifle supposedly is.
Or should we at least make it illegal to take your kid swimming?
And thousands of people die a year bicycling, dozens-hundreds of them kids.
Should we make it illegal for kids to ride bikes?
Dozens-hundreds of people die skating, skiing and snowboarding a year.
Dozens-hundreds of people die kayaking.

Guns are a necessity for some, ranchers use them to defend their livestock from wild animals, hunters kill animals who’s meat they mean to eat and/or sell, and people occasionally use them to defend themselves and their families from burglars and armed robbers.

And arguably people ought to have the right to own assault rifles, in prep for a manmade or natural disaster, and if a few extra people die a year because of that, so be it, it’s an acceptable risk, again the odds of you or your kid being killed because there wasn’t an assault rifles ban is 1 in many millions, it’s astronomically low, and there’s many other activates from swimming to bicycling we allow ourselves and our kids to do, that’re just as, or far more deadly dangerous.

It would cost billions of dollars for government to purchase everyone’s assault rifles, as there’s millions of them in the USA, for only a few dozen deaths a year, instead we could be spending that money to build new hospitals and improve existing ones, saving thousands of lives, and it would cost millions of dollars a year to continually enforce an assault rifle ban, we could use those millions to give poor people the advanced medical procedures they so desperately need to save their lives, but hardly anyone thinks of this stuff, hardly anyone counts the cost.
No they just scream: ban guns, or ban assault rifles, as if it was self-evident.

Few people think about this stuff rationally because they’ve been conditioned to react to it solely on an emotional level, for arguably government in conjunction with the media have an agenda.
From my research it’s not about saving lives, it’s about government further monopolizing force.
They always want a little more for them, and a hell of a lot less for us.

Yes, there is going more than one factor at play…

How about for one, off the top of my head:
Kennesaw GA population: over 30,000
Chicago population: over 2,700,000

Now using a bit of math on your own stats:
Chicago murders: 0.015% of the population p.a.
Kennesaw GA murders: 0.00033% of the population p.a.

That’s a factor of 45 times more murders p.a. as a proportion of population, taking into account that 1 variable alone. Now add in things like population density, diversity, poverty, street gangs, and consider the murder rate before strict gun laws were introduced in Chicago… - I doubt they were introduced because there wasn’t enough gun crime before…

I only had to think about this for a few minutes with no expert knowledge on either area, just to completely obliterate your misuse of statistics.

I don’t think you realise that you’re actually advocating gun control by comparing guns with cars…

You have to pass a driving test to drive a car, there are highly restrictive speed limits everywhere compared to what even the worst cars are able to reach, along with signs everywhere telling you what to do and not do with your car, and car technology has progressed to be safer and less deadly with airbags and crumple zones etc. Everything about the progression of driving has been to make it LESS deadly. And their deadliness is set to reduce even further with the use of AI. Along with the obvious fact that people have already mentioned: the purpose of cars was never to kill but to transport, supporting this is precisely not being ok with people dying.

Way to weaken your argument, idiot.

Sil,

Are you sure about your math?

1 murder per 10 years
400 murders per 1 year

I suck at math so I’d like you to confirm your certainty.

Not only are guns a necessity for many outdoorsmen: campers, hikers, hunters, for ranchers, rural people who live miles away from the nearest police station among wild animals, for people who want to protect themselves and their families, their friends and neighbors…but they can also be fun when handled responsibly, they look cool, they’re fun to target practice with, and they give people a sense of freedom, power and security…and of course a few psychos unfortunately let that sense of power go to their heads, somewhat tainting and tarnishing things for the rest of us.
Some people collect guns, antique guns, new guns, it’s a hobby for them.

So to say guns are just there to murder people I think is an exercise in hyperbole, they’re a weapon, but they’re also a tool, they can be used for good or bad.
And like it or not, they’re here to stay.

Now perhaps they require more regulation stateside, that is another matter, gun salesmen perform background checks on people alerady, but apparently you can purchase guns at gunshows wihout a background check in some rural parts of the south.
Perhpas something should be done about that.
But it’s ludicrous to want to ban all guns, to portray them as inherently evil, or to make it so only former police officers or solders can legally purchase them, some people depend on them for their livelihood.

Very glad to see that you cannot refute what I have said.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Haha