Sign in to follow this  
Uncooperative Tom

Number of School Shootings Decreased

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I notice that the peanut gallery is again refusing to talk about any of the other causal factors.  Look - a shithead kid who's decided to kill/hurt a girl who turned him down has a myriad of methods at his disposal.  Getting rid of guns isn't going to address the ability for that kid to use his car, make a bomb, make chlorine gas (it's easy - bleach and toilet cleaner) - and those of you who want to get rid of guns and then sit on your laurels will be complicit in the violence that continues after that happens because in your myopic focus on "getting rid of guns" you collectively REFUSED to engage in the discussion of causality.   

 I hope I'm gone when that happens, but, I'm quite certain it will.  

With all due respect, Chesapeake, using a car, making a bomb, making chlorine gas, etc all require a bit more effort, a bit more considered intent, and time to cool down than picking up a gun and shooting someone. Like it or not, violent reactions to being spurned by one's love interest have several millennia of precedence. Up to an including murder. Making it easier to obtain and use a weapon that gives you little time for second thoughts helps turn that reaction into reality.

And, no, we're not refusing to engage in the discussion of causality. What we're refusing to do is let that discussion distract from the proven means of lowering the lethal effects of that causality. You want to discuss it, have at it. You can join the long history of people blaming jazz, rock music, comics, television, movies, and social media for all the first-world's violence instead of understanding the fact that, evolutionarily speaking, we're barely evolved from the animals that literally beat their sexual competition to death if they don't back off. Violence is a part of human instinct. Until you weed that out at the genetic level, society needs to do more than shrug it's shoulders and blame the latest "new thing" for the same violent impulses every generation has had. The 1930's had a higher homicide rate than you do now. Pretending it's something "new" that causes this is just burying your head in the sand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

With all due respect, Chesapeake, using a car, making a bomb, making chlorine gas, etc all require a bit more effort, a bit more considered intent, and time to cool down than picking up a gun and shooting someone. Like it or not, violent reactions to being spurned by one's love interest have several millennia of precedence. Up to an including murder. Making it easier to obtain and use a weapon that gives you little time for second thoughts helps turn that reaction into reality.

And, no, we're not refusing to engage in the discussion of causality. What we're refusing to do is let that discussion distract from the proven means of lowering the lethal effects of that causality. You want to discuss it, have at it. You can join the long history of people blaming jazz, rock music, comics, television, movies, and social media for all the first-world's violence instead of understanding the fact that, evolutionarily speaking, we're barely evolved from the animals that literally beat their sexual competition to death if they don't back off. Violence is a part of human instinct. Until you weed that out at the genetic level, society needs to do more than shrug it's shoulders and blame the latest "new thing" for the same violent impulses every generation has had. The 1930's had a higher homicide rate than you do now. Pretending it's something "new" that causes this is just burying your head in the sand.

To the 1st?  It doesn't take any extra effort to use a car to inflict violence - it's happened several times in the past year, in the US, Canada, and in Europe.  I have no disagreement with your other comments, aside from the unstated assertion that lack of access to guns will leave only methods to implement violence that are too difficult for the jilted to consider.  

The bolded part? I agree with that. I'll add that 30 years ago - we didn't have the plethora of school shootings, gang violence, etc that we do now.  What's changed ISN'T the guns - it's the societal attitudes.  I'm not blaming violence on a bunch of stupid BS - I *do* recognize that we are experiencing people who have an increased propensity to use a greater magnitude of violence as expression than we did then, and to fix that, I think that it's appropriate to look at what HAS changed.   

The homicide rate of the 30s was largely due to the violence surrounding prohibition - look at the #s once prohibition ended.    I have my own ideas about causality, but, I'm not properly educated to make anything other than anecdotal observations.  I do think that the longer we focus more on implements than causality, the worse the problem will get.  I'm not the one burying my head in the sand, Bent - it's those who think that eliminating firearms is going to be a panacea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To the 1st?  It doesn't take any extra effort to use a car to inflict violence - it's happened several times in the past year, in the US, Canada, and in Europe.  I have no disagreement with your other comments, aside from the unstated assertion that lack of access to guns will leave only methods to implement violence that are too difficult for the jilted to consider.  

The bolded part? I agree with that. I'll add that 30 years ago - we didn't have the plethora of school shootings, gang violence, etc that we do now.  What's changed ISN'T the guns - it's the societal attitudes.  I'm not blaming violence on a bunch of stupid BS - I *do* recognize that we are experiencing people who have an increased propensity to use a greater magnitude of violence as expression than we did then, and to fix that, I think that it's appropriate to look at what HAS changed.   

The homicide rate of the 30s was largely due to the violence surrounding prohibition - look at the #s once prohibition ended.    I have my own ideas about causality, but, I'm not properly educated to make anything other than anecdotal observations.  I do think that the longer we focus more on implements than causality, the worse the problem will get.  I'm not the one burying my head in the sand, Bent - it's those who think that eliminating firearms is going to be a panacea. 

What has also changed in the last 3 years is the instant and continuous publicity of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

What we're refusing to do is let that discussion distract from the proven means of lowering the lethal effects of that causality.

Do you mean "proven" or "correlated" in this case? Because those are different things.

If you mean proven, let's see the proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I notice that the peanut gallery is again refusing to talk about any of the other causal factors.  Look - a shithead kid who's decided to kill/hurt a girl who turned him down has a myriad of methods at his disposal.  Getting rid of guns isn't going to address the ability for that kid to use his car, make a bomb, make chlorine gas (it's easy - bleach and toilet cleaner) - and those of you who want to get rid of guns and then sit on your laurels will be complicit in the violence that continues after that happens because in your myopic focus on "getting rid of guns" you collectively REFUSED to engage in the discussion of causality.   

I hope I'm gone when that happens, but, I'm quite certain it will.  

You're absolutely right and that explains why the USA leads the world in this sort of thing - because the guns are not a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, badlatitude said:

If you followed these threads, you would know the story behind my SCAR and how I got rid of it. Since you haven't bothered to keep up, I see no reason to revisit that episode.

Well BL, which of the following do you disagree with?

1) Moved AW out of CA to avoid complying with CA AW law

2) Sold to friend via private sale (no background check).

3) Wrote a lot pre 1,2 about how you would destroy it rather then sell it.

So what conclusion am I supposed to draw, BL? Don't bother linking your nonsense about how you "couldn't" destroy it.

Any number of tools could of been used to render the receiver destroyed.

But $$ won out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Well BL, which of the following do you disagree with?

1) Moved AW out of CA to avoid complying with CA AW law

2) Sold to friend via private sale (no background check).

3) Wrote a lot pre 1,2 about how you would destroy it rather then sell it.

So what conclusion am I supposed to draw, BL? Don't bother linking your nonsense about how you "couldn't" destroy it.

Any number of tools could of been used to render the receiver destroyed.

But $$ won out.

I hate to confound your day, but no money was involved, just $100 to seal the deal which I promptly gave to a homeless person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

I hate to confound your day, but no money was involved, just $100 to seal the deal which I promptly gave to a homeless person.

Its good to see you have a base amount for the next time you need to exchange your principles for cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Its good to see you have a base amount for the next time you need to exchange your principles for cash.

A clean conscience can be had for very little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To the 1st?  It doesn't take any extra effort to use a car to inflict violence - it's happened several times in the past year, in the US, Canada, and in Europe.

We were not talking about terrorism. We were talking about jilted teens and the weapons they would choose in the heat of the moment. Look at the stats - vehicular homicide is a near negligible fraction of overall murders. Even in countries such as mine that have far stronger restriction on guns, vehicles are simply not the weapon of choice - for terrorism or jilted lover's revenge. Psychologically speaking (and that's your causality remember) - sitting in the car waiting for someone to get into a position you can run them over, where they won't see your face or you theirs, is very different to walking up to them, yelling whatever it was you think they should hear, and then shooting them.

Run the situations through your mind - which do you think is going to give the upset teen more down time to think their actions through - sitting still with the motor idling waiting for an opportunity or stalking into a building & making one with a firearm?

 

7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I have no disagreement with your other comments, aside from the unstated assertion that lack of access to guns will leave only methods to implement violence that are too difficult for the jilted to consider.  

Well, there is a reason that assertion is unstated - because I don't believe it nor even implied it. For someone complaining about others miscontruing their posts for cheap shots, you sure love to indulge in that yourself.

My assertion is that other means are more difficult &/or require more time between the violent impulse to kill and the sequence of actions that do so. That doesn't mean a jilted teen won't consider them at the time of the violent impulse, it means that the teen has more time to recover their wits/temper before going through with it. Other means you suggested do not have the same psychological confrontation the jilted teen is looking for. There is a reason that chlorine gas, as easy as it is to make, is not used in school massacres - it doesn't have the same confrontational appeal. Same for vehicles. 

If you want to talk causality, you need to stop pretending the appeal for firearms is exactly the same as all other means of killing. It isn't. 

 

7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 The bolded part? I agree with that. I'll add that 30 years ago - we didn't have the plethora of school shootings, gang violence, etc that we do now.  What's changed ISN'T the guns - it's the societal attitudes.  I'm not blaming violence on a bunch of stupid BS - I *do* recognize that we are experiencing people who have an increased propensity to use a greater magnitude of violence as expression than we did then, and to fix that, I think that it's appropriate to look at what HAS changed.   

 The homicide rate of the 30s was largely due to the violence surrounding prohibition - look at the #s once prohibition ended.    I have my own ideas about causality, but, I'm not properly educated to make anything other than anecdotal observations.  I do think that the longer we focus more on implements than causality, the worse the problem will get.  I'm not the one burying my head in the sand, Bent - it's those who think that eliminating firearms is going to be a panacea. 

We had a similarly higher proportion of murders during that period - without the prohibition. If you also look at the homicide rate of the prohibition era - it simply continued the same trend from 1910. Prohibition played a part, no doubts, just like cocaine did in the 1980's; but to pretend that the trend of increasing homicide ten years before that (leaving prohibition starting more murderous than now) doesn't count is sticking your head in the sand.

Like it or not, the blame for violence is not on the new - it's on the same thing it's always been, people being human. People have tempers, people have "fight or flight" wiring, and people have the ingrained instinct that when the shit hits the fan - might makes right. It's in the DNA and when people become frayed and they start resorting to that genetic wiring. Removing firearms is not a panacea. I've never stated it was; and I know you know that because you've told others that's not my position in the past. As you already know, my belief based on empirical evidence across the first world is that access to firearms makes violence more lethal.

Quite simply put, the numbers don't lie - Australia has as much violent crime as the USA. The USA is not a special snowflake with a unique violence problem in it's society. It has the same problems of poverty, drugs, gangs, etc we do... except it adds guns to the mix. We have jilted teens fed on the same culture of social media, movies, rap music, you name it as you do. What we don't have is easy access to firearms - which means those jilted teens, violent thugs, gang members, etc are less likely to have their violence become lethal. Frankly, any solutions in causality you have to drive down homicide is going to have the same effect here - meaning you'll still be four times more likely to be murdered in the USA. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

A clean conscience can be had for very little.

You will have to explain your logical leap here, you didn't destroy the AW, you put it back on the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

You will have to explain your logical leap here, you didn't destroy the AW, you put it back on the street.

What moral value are you trying to convince me while you still hold weapons of your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I notice that the peanut gallery is again refusing to talk about any of the other causal factors.  Look - a shithead kid who's decided to kill/hurt a girl who turned him down has a myriad of methods at his disposal.  Getting rid of guns isn't going to address the ability for that kid to use his car, make a bomb, make chlorine gas (it's easy - bleach and toilet cleaner) - and those of you who want to get rid of guns and then sit on your laurels will be complicit in the violence that continues after that happens because in your myopic focus on "getting rid of guns" you collectively REFUSED to engage in the discussion of causality.   

I hope I'm gone when that happens, but, I'm quite certain it will.  

Gunz just make it easy. Cause they are designed to kill, right off the shelf. The rest of the stuff makes someone actually show initiative. Any Looser Elk can buy a gun and go and kill someone. It's takes some thought to build a bomb.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, badlatitude said:

A clean conscience can be had for very little.

What thoughts troubled your conscience back when you were an assault weapon owner?

You seemed ok with your gun ownership not that long ago...

On 1/9/2018 at 11:52 AM, badlatitude said:
On 1/9/2018 at 2:42 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You'd think that admirers of courageous grabberz would show solidarity by doing things like, you know, getting rid of your assault weapons.

But then,

I like my Second Amendment rights and will continue to resist the Nutterz attempts to dislodge me from my rights. I already said I would voluntarily surrender my weapons, my job now is to make sure that you do too.

Did someone say something to make your conscience feel dirty or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

What thoughts troubled your conscience back when you were an assault weapon owner?

You seemed ok with your gun ownership not that long ago...

Did someone say something to make your conscience feel dirty or something?

Too many deaths Tom, it should have shaken your conscience by now, but I guess some of us are determined to hold on to their toys rather than question their value to society overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Gunz just make it easy. Cause they are designed to kill, right off the shelf. The rest of the stuff makes someone actually show initiative. Any Looser Elk can buy a gun and go and kill someone. It's takes some thought to build a bomb.

No argument with this at all, except for the idea that I suspect you hold that the people who would use a gun to inflict violence will consider the other methods too much trouble to employ.  Would we realize some reduction in the crimes committed in a moment of passion/pique?  I think so.  Would we realize a greater benefit addressing the societal conditioning that I think is largely responsible for the increased magnitude of violence - I think so.  

Y'all know I Iike to hunt and shoot - but, I've been too busy and consumed with other things to  put a round thru the chamber of anything I own for months.  The gun itself really isn't that important to me - preservation of our freedoms and the efficacy of the approach is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, badlatitude said:

What moral value are you trying to convince me while you still hold weapons of your own?

So selling an AW via private sale, instead of destroying it as you claimed you would - gives you some sort of moral high ground?

Sure thing, BL. You exchange your principles for money, but you have the high ground. I'm sure we will never see you post negatively about the "gun show loophole", right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're at the point now where more school kids have died in shootings so far this year than US service persons in line of duty. IOW, it's more dangerous to go to school than to go into a combat zone. The NRA and their Republican puppets are unable to offer any solutions other than 'more guns'...so it's time they're kicked out of the way and action taken without their input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So selling an AW via private sale, instead of destroying it as you claimed you would - gives you some sort of moral high ground?

Sure thing, BL. You exchange your principles for money, but you have the high ground. I'm sure we will never see you post negatively about the "gun show loophole", right?  

It gives me higher moral ground than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RKoch said:

and action taken without their input.

What other amendments did you plan on getting rid of to create your gun free utopia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RKoch said:

We're at the point now where more school kids have died in shootings so far this year than US service persons in line of duty. IOW, it's more dangerous to go to school than to go into a combat zone. The NRA and their Republican puppets are unable to offer any solutions other than 'more guns'...so it's time they're kicked out of the way and action taken without their input.

It's only "more dangerous" to those who are really bad at math. And those at the Washington Post who are actually good at math and intend to mislead.

Quote

If the implication here is that being a student is riskier than joining the military—well, that's highly misleading, if not flat-out wrong. As The Washington Post admits, five paragraphs into the article, there are 50 million kids in American K-12 schools and just 1.3 million military service people. The raw school shooting casualty number is higher than the military fatality number at this particular point in 2018, but when we divide by the total number of people in each group, it remains the case that being a solider is 17 times more likely to result in death than being a student.

But you did put this in the right thread. Employing bad math to scare people is pretty similar to misrepresenting a suicide on a property that was once a school. It's just using nonsense to scare people.

The TeamD dream of sweeping Republicans out of the way would result in banning guns like my .22 and confiscating it upon my death.

Do you really think this should be the last generation of Floridians to be free to own a battlefield .22 with a fixed magazine like mine? You haven't expressed your support for that idea in the thread on the topic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 8:35 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you mean "proven" or "correlated" in this case? Because those are different things.

If you mean proven, let's see the proof.

That's some serious denial  and some deadly propaganda, too).  Because @Bent Sailor has done a great job of presenting the established safety found in the leading nations which have controlled their gun policies, as opposed the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 4:31 PM, bpm57 said:

You will have to explain your logical leap here, you didn't destroy the AW, you put it back on the street.

Sister Mary DeadEye carries the finest standards of firearms disposal, to be imposed on others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you really think this should be the last generation of Floridians to be free to own a battlefield .22 with a fixed magazine like mine?

I'm still on the fence. I need much more discussion of battlefield .22's. Thanks, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

carries the finest standards of firearms disposal, to be imposed on others

We know you have reading comprehension problems, Joe.

But if you forgot, BL claimed all on his own that he would destroy his AW. Instead he sold it.

Which is why your inability to say anything about it is particularly surprising.

Then again, its not like you actually have any real beliefs.. so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Sister Mary DeadEye

I thought you didn't go "down the 3rd grade gutter"?

Of course, you tend to double down on your lies - why should that post be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 5/22/2018 at 11:35 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you mean "proven" or "correlated" in this case? Because those are different things.

If you mean proven, let's see the proof.

That's some serious denial  and some deadly propaganda, too). 

You might want to look up the difference between "proven" and "correlated", Joe

But it is cute the way you call it denial and propaganda to suggest they are actually different. I guess Tom has infiltrated the dictionary websites as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 3:04 PM, RKoch said:

We're at the point now where more school kids have died in shootings so far this year than US service persons in line of duty. IOW, it's more dangerous to go to school than to go into a combat zone. The NRA and their Republican puppets are unable to offer any solutions other than 'more guns'...so it's time they're kicked out of the way and action taken without their input.

well, that's horrific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

We know you have reading comprehension problems, Joe.

But if you forgot, BL claimed all on his own that he would destroy his AW. Instead he sold it.

Which is why your inability to say anything about it is particularly surprising.

 

IF WISHES WERE HORSES

DeadEye Dick wants @badlatitude to destroy his fancy gun, after the fact. And I want Elvis to do a song about Tom's endangered .22's.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 6:25 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Number of School Shootings Decreased

Bloomberg $ay$ there have been 17, not 18
 

Quote

 

Everytown has long inflated its total by including incidents of gunfire that are not really school shootings. Take, for example, what it counted as the year’s first: On the afternoon of Jan. 3, a 31-year-old man who had parked outside a Michigan elementary school called police to say he was armed and suicidal. Several hours later, he killed himself. The school, however, had been closed for seven months. There were no teachers. There were no students.

Also listed on the organization’s site is an incident from Jan. 20, when at 1 a.m. a man was shot at a sorority event on the campus of Wake Forest University. A week later, as a basketball game was being played at a Michigan high school, someone fired several rounds from a gun in the parking lot. No one was injured, and it was past 8 p.m., well after classes had ended for the day, but Everytown still labeled it a school shooting.

Everytown explains on its website that it defines a school shooting as “any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds.”

Sarah Tofte, Everytown’s research director, calls the definition “crystal clear,” noting that “every time a gun is discharged on school grounds it shatters the sense of safety” for students, parents and the community.

...

After The Washington Post published this report, Everytown removed the Jan. 3 suicide outside the closed Michigan school.

 

I guess Bloomberg has adopted my callous disregard for people who commit suicide and their families. Good for him!

He's going the wrong direction!

4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I wonder how soon school shootings will be a daily occurrence just like "regular" mass shootings?

You seem to be on track for it to happen this year.

 


One can always hope! And if hoping doesn't work, one can always misrepresent some suicides and accidents and act like adult college students are "kids in school" to pad the numbers some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

to destroy his fancy gun, after the fact.

No, I'd just like to see you call out BL the same way you call out everyone who disagrees with you. But it has been months now, so I think we have better odds of you figuring out the difference between Miller & MacDonald then calling out a convert controller on here for putting an AW on the street.

It would of worked better to destroy it before the fact, but money won out over his "principles".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this