Another mass shooting...

Quote from: User324 on May 22, 2018, 01:26:35 AM

The swisstards may have firearms, but they have it because of military, meaning they have no ammo at home. Can't compare that to situations in other countries.

If I remember correctly, Everybody in the Swiss Army is also issued with ammo.

Switzerland is an interesting country.  They used to keep the ammo but after a few incidents involving firearms ways are changing.  Gun control is becoming much more strict.

It's kind of interesting how little it took for them to change their gun laws.  Our schools are more dangerous than our war zones and we do exactly nothing.

Quote from: User324 on May 22, 2018, 01:26:35 AM

The swisstards may have firearms, but they have it because of military, meaning they have no ammo at home. Can't compare that to situations in other countries.

If I remember correctly, Everybody in the Swiss Army is also issued with ammo.

And a knife that has a fork and a spoon and a bottle opener.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/16/resource-officer-prevents-possible-school-shooting-after-man-brings-gun-to-illinois-high-school.html

It's kind of funny how this isn't being reported nearly as much as the recent school shooting. It's almost like it doesn't fit the narrative that guns are evil and should be destroyed.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/16/resource-officer-prevents-possible-school-shooting-after-man-brings-gun-to-illinois-high-school.html

It's kind of funny how this isn't being reported nearly as much as the recent school shooting. It's almost like it doesn't fit the narrative that guns are evil and should be destroyed.

Well obviously.  People not getting murdered at school isn't supposed to be newsworthy.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 08:14:23 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/16/resource-officer-prevents-possible-school-shooting-after-man-brings-gun-to-illinois-high-school.html

It's kind of funny how this isn't being reported nearly as much as the recent school shooting. It's almost like it doesn't fit the narrative that guns are evil and should be destroyed.

Well obviously.  People not getting murdered at school isn't supposed to be newsworthy.

Yeah, but it was a GUN that saved lives.

Quote from: Crouton on May 22, 2018, 08:31:27 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 08:14:23 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/16/resource-officer-prevents-possible-school-shooting-after-man-brings-gun-to-illinois-high-school.html

It's kind of funny how this isn't being reported nearly as much as the recent school shooting. It's almost like it doesn't fit the narrative that guns are evil and should be destroyed.

Well obviously.  People not getting murdered at school isn't supposed to be newsworthy.

Yeah, but it was a GUN that saved lives.

One less gun and he wouldn't have even had to use his. And yeah, why would they make a big deal out of a shooting that DIDN'T happen, compared to shootings with multiple dead victims? What kind of stupid argument is that?

I think someone caught bringing a gun to school should be rare and newsworthy. The fact that we apparently don't consider it newsworthy unless they shoot up a bunch of people is appalling as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 08:33:33 AM

Quote from: Crouton on May 22, 2018, 08:31:27 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 08:14:23 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/16/resource-officer-prevents-possible-school-shooting-after-man-brings-gun-to-illinois-high-school.html

It's kind of funny how this isn't being reported nearly as much as the recent school shooting. It's almost like it doesn't fit the narrative that guns are evil and should be destroyed.

Well obviously.  People not getting murdered at school isn't supposed to be newsworthy.

Yeah, but it was a GUN that saved lives.

One less gun and he wouldn't have even had to use his. And yeah, why would they make a big deal out of a shooting that DIDN'T happen, compared to shootings with multiple dead victims? What kind of stupid argument is that?

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 22, 2018, 09:58:18 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 08:33:33 AM

Quote from: Crouton on May 22, 2018, 08:31:27 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 08:14:23 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/16/resource-officer-prevents-possible-school-shooting-after-man-brings-gun-to-illinois-high-school.html

It's kind of funny how this isn't being reported nearly as much as the recent school shooting. It's almost like it doesn't fit the narrative that guns are evil and should be destroyed.

Well obviously.  People not getting murdered at school isn't supposed to be newsworthy.

Yeah, but it was a GUN that saved lives.

One less gun and he wouldn't have even had to use his. And yeah, why would they make a big deal out of a shooting that DIDN'T happen, compared to shootings with multiple dead victims? What kind of stupid argument is that?

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

The link you provided is fox news.  Don't you think the largest media outlet in the US counts as the MSM?

Correction, the left-bias media I should say.

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/officer-hailed-a-hero-for-stopping-gunman-at-illinois-high-school-1235517507895

moron

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 10:44:53 AM

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/officer-hailed-a-hero-for-stopping-gunman-at-illinois-high-school-1235517507895

moron

If I had feelings they'd be hurt

Quote from: TotesReptilian on May 22, 2018, 11:36:39 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 10:44:53 AM

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/officer-hailed-a-hero-for-stopping-gunman-at-illinois-high-school-1235517507895

moron

If I had feelings they'd be hurt

Yeah keep pretending, we all know that '' is a smile of PAIN!

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 23, 2018, 07:06:53 AM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on May 22, 2018, 11:36:39 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 10:44:53 AM

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/officer-hailed-a-hero-for-stopping-gunman-at-illinois-high-school-1235517507895

moron

If I had feelings they'd be hurt

Yeah keep pretending, we all know that '' is a smile of PAIN!

I was going to say something about doing your mom in the bum, but refrained.  Are you proud of me?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 22, 2018, 01:44:13 AM

Quote from: User324 on May 22, 2018, 01:26:35 AM

The swisstards may have firearms, but they have it because of military, meaning they have no ammo at home. Can't compare that to situations in other countries.

If I remember correctly, Everybody in the Swiss Army is also issued with ammo.

Switzerland is an interesting country.  They used to keep the ammo but after a few incidents involving firearms ways are changing.  Gun control is becoming much more strict.

It's kind of interesting how little it took for them to change their gun laws.  Our schools are more dangerous than our war zones and we do exactly nothing.

Actually, your stat speaks more to how modern warfare is becoming more safe rather than how our schools are becoming less safe, first of all. You're more likely to win the lottery twice than to be killed in a school shooting. That also means you're more likely to win the lottery more than twice than to die in a battlefield. Secondly, the reason why you're less likely to die in the battlefield is because soldiers can shoot back, as opposed to being trapped in a confined space with no or futile means to defend yourself. Finally, way more people die from texting and driving, yet we don't see a #marchforourlives with thousands protesting government to do something about it.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 10:44:53 AM

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/officer-hailed-a-hero-for-stopping-gunman-at-illinois-high-school-1235517507895

moron

And are they still covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

Quote from: TotesReptilian on May 22, 2018, 11:36:39 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 10:44:53 AM

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/officer-hailed-a-hero-for-stopping-gunman-at-illinois-high-school-1235517507895

moron

And are they still covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

Why would they? That makes no sense.

Actually, your stat speaks more to how modern warfare is becoming more safe rather than how our schools are becoming less safe, first of all. You're more likely to win the lottery twice than to be killed in a school shooting.

Oh gee, that's comforting. How about saying that approximately 1 in 1000 public schools have been shot up since Sandy Hook?

That also means you're more likely to win the lottery more than twice than to die in a battlefield. Secondly, the reason why you're less likely to die in the battlefield is because soldiers can shoot back, as opposed to being trapped in a confined space with no or futile means to defend yourself. Finally, way more people die from texting and driving, yet we don't see a #marchforourlives with thousands protesting government to do something about it.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Have you ever protested anything? If yes, it probably was less important, according to your argument, than the people who die because of texting and driving, so you should stop protesting whatever you were protesting and protested texting and driving instead. Why do people feel this need to throw false equivalencies all over the place every time this subject comes up?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 23, 2018, 09:28:18 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on May 22, 2018, 11:36:39 AM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on May 22, 2018, 10:44:53 AM

The point is that is doesn't further the anti-gun narrative so the MSM is conveniently ignoring it. If that resource officer wasn't there who knows how many would have been shot and/or killed.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/officer-hailed-a-hero-for-stopping-gunman-at-illinois-high-school-1235517507895

moron

And are they still covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

Why would they? That makes no sense.

The argument was that the media isn't covering the shooting that was stopped by an armed person the way the Santa Fe shooting was. Totes replied with two articles "disproving" the original claim. In, my opinion, the original poster wasn't claiming that the media wasn't covering the other incident at all, but not as frequent as the Santa Fe shooting. Thus my question. Are they covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 23, 2018, 09:26:16 PM

Actually, your stat speaks more to how modern warfare is becoming more safe rather than how our schools are becoming less safe, first of all. You're more likely to win the lottery twice than to be killed in a school shooting.

Oh gee, that's comforting. How about saying that approximately 1 in 1000 public schools have been shot up since Sandy Hook?

Still doesn't change the frequency. If I told you that 2 in 1,000 people wins the lottery, does that make you more likely to win than if I said the statistic in a different fashion?

Quote

That also means you're more likely to win the lottery more than twice than to die in a battlefield. Secondly, the reason why you're less likely to die in the battlefield is because soldiers can shoot back, as opposed to being trapped in a confined space with no or futile means to defend yourself. Finally, way more people die from texting and driving, yet we don't see a #marchforourlives with thousands protesting government to do something about it.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Have you ever protested anything?

I haven't marched in the streets for anything if that's what you're asking.

If yes, it probably was less important, according to your argument, than the people who die because of texting and driving, so you should stop protesting whatever you were protesting and protested texting and driving instead. Why do people feel this need to throw false equivalencies all over the place every time this subject comes up?

The argument is we need to restrict (or as some of the rally leaders and protesters stated outright ban) gun ownership because too many children are dying. Which, if that was their true intent, then there are far more things that kill way more children that are the cause of human nature, such as texting and driving.

The argument was that the media isn't covering the shooting that was stopped by an armed person the way the Santa Fe shooting was. Totes replied with two articles "disproving" the original claim. In, my opinion, the original poster wasn't claiming that the media wasn't covering the other incident at all, but not as frequent as the Santa Fe shooting. Thus my question. Are they covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

No, Wesker literally said they weren't covering it. And my question is, why WOULD they be covering it the same way, as a story where so many children died? Isn't it obvious that these stories wouldn't be covered the same way, regardless of bias?

Still doesn't change the frequency. If I told you that 2 in 1,000 people wins the lottery, does that make you more likely to win than if I said the statistic in a different fashion?

No, but you intentionally make it sound like it's less of a problem than it actually is. Do you know how many schools have been shot up in my country in my lifetime? 1 (there was an incident in 2009 where someone shot at 3 people, thankfully no one died except himself, but that was in a vocational college, not sure if it counts). 2018 has barely started and you have had 17 school shootings with multiple fatalities. Yes, the US has a population about 20 times larger. But the math is pretty simple, and there is still no comparison in the frequency. If that trend continues (and not only does it continue but it gets more frequent), given that within 5 years about 1 in 1000 schools have been shot up, the same incident doesn't usually happen on the same school twice, you go to a school that hasn't already been shot up and most children spend at least 12 years at school, I think you can see that the odds of your school being shot up and you experiencing trauma as a result are A LOT higher than winning the lottery twice, even if you don't die.

The argument is we need to restrict (or as some of the rally leaders and protesters stated outright ban) gun ownership because too many children are dying. Which, if that was their true intent, then there are far more things that kill way more children that are the cause of human nature, such as texting and driving.

Oh really? Like, protest for laws that prohibit texting and driving, or set up campaigns that raise awareness for how dangerous texting and driving is? Oh wait, these laws and campaigns already exist. But there's only so much a government can do to restrict the irresponsible behaviour of some people. When it comes to guns however and the subject of school shootings in general, it hardly does ANYTHING substantial to restrict this behaviour, and it's because of people like you who keep distracting from the issue to go on tirades about how they should be talking about something else and disregard the fact that school shootings are an epidemic in the US and schools are no longer an environment where children can feel safe and learn.

For my part, I can't remember a single school shooting in my country in my lifetime. Also can't remember any in the neighbour countries to be honest. Kinda seems like a 'murican problem to me. But whatever, I mean it's your constitutional right to buy guns in wallmart, so it's all good.

For my part, I can't remember a single school shooting in my country in my lifetime. Also can't remember any in the neighbour countries to be honest. Kinda seems like a 'murican problem to me. But whatever, I mean it's your constitutional right to buy guns in wallmart, so it's all good.

Wikipedia has a list of all school shootings in Europe ever. I counted 28. About how many happen in USA within half a year. To be absolutely fair, I don't think it's JUST the gun laws. It's also the gun culture, and it probably also has to do with the school system and culture there. It's a weird phenomenon.

Quote from: User324 on May 24, 2018, 10:34:46 AM

For my part, I can't remember a single school shooting in my country in my lifetime. Also can't remember any in the neighbour countries to be honest. Kinda seems like a 'murican problem to me. But whatever, I mean it's your constitutional right to buy guns in wallmart, so it's all good.

Wikipedia has a list of all school shootings in Europe ever. I counted 28. About how many happen in USA within half a year. To be absolutely fair, I don't think it's JUST the gun laws. It's also the gun culture, and it probably also has to do with the school system and culture there. It's a weird phenomenon.

I think that it's more than just gun culture.  I think it's more of a culture of violence in general.  What can you expect when you record your history by the wars you've fought and your action heroes are graded by their body counts?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 24, 2018, 01:25:08 AM

The argument was that the media isn't covering the shooting that was stopped by an armed person the way the Santa Fe shooting was. Totes replied with two articles "disproving" the original claim. In, my opinion, the original poster wasn't claiming that the media wasn't covering the other incident at all, but not as frequent as the Santa Fe shooting. Thus my question. Are they covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

No, Wesker literally said they weren't covering it. And my question is, why WOULD they be covering it the same way, as a story where so many children died? Isn't it obvious that these stories wouldn't be covered the same way, regardless of bias?

I guess so.

Quote

Still doesn't change the frequency. If I told you that 2 in 1,000 people wins the lottery, does that make you more likely to win than if I said the statistic in a different fashion?

No, but you intentionally make it sound like it's less of a problem than it actually is.

I could just as easily say that you intentionally make it sound like it's more of a problem than it actually is.

Do you know how many schools have been shot up in my country in my lifetime? 1 (there was an incident in 2009 where someone shot at 3 people, thankfully no one died except himself, but that was in a vocational college, not sure if it counts). 2018 has barely started and you have had 17 school shootings with multiple fatalities. Yes, the US has a population about 20 times larger. But the math is pretty simple, and there is still no comparison in the frequency. If that trend continues (and not only does it continue but it gets more frequent), given that within 5 years about 1 in 1000 schools have been shot up, the same incident doesn't usually happen on the same school twice, you go to a school that hasn't already been shot up and most children spend at least 12 years at school, I think you can see that the odds of your school being shot up and you experiencing trauma as a result are A LOT higher than winning the lottery twice, even if you don't die.

Actually the 17 school shootings stat is inflated. Of the 18, actually, acclaimed school shootings, only 8 of them inloved multiple casualties or even multiple targets. The rest were accidental discharges and even a suicide in an empty school parking lot.

Quote

The argument is we need to restrict (or as some of the rally leaders and protesters stated outright ban) gun ownership because too many children are dying. Which, if that was their true intent, then there are far more things that kill way more children that are the cause of human nature, such as texting and driving.

Oh really? Like, protest for laws that prohibit texting and driving, or set up campaigns that raise awareness for how dangerous texting and driving is? Oh wait, these laws and campaigns already exist.

Yeah, a hard to read sign passing by or a minute long commercial here and there or if you go on a police department's facebook page or program. That's not the same as media pundits going on for hours at a time about how dangerous texting and driving is or giant rallies raising awareness about the dangers.

But there's only so much a government can do to restrict the irresponsible behaviour of some people. When it comes to guns however and the subject of school shootings in general, it hardly does ANYTHING substantial to restrict this behaviour, and it's because of people like you who keep distracting from the issue to go on tirades about how they should be talking about something else and disregard the fact that school shootings are an epidemic in the US and schools are no longer an environment where children can feel safe and learn.

Actually there are many restrictions and laws in place to prevent this kind of thing. They aren't being enforced is the problem. The Parkland shooter could've been arrested/committed several times over before he could shoot anyone. And we also have solutions of our own. In my state for example, it is now mandated that there should a police officer or a trained armed guardian for every 1,000 students if I have the number correctly.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 24, 2018, 03:14:27 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 24, 2018, 01:25:08 AM

The argument was that the media isn't covering the shooting that was stopped by an armed person the way the Santa Fe shooting was. Totes replied with two articles "disproving" the original claim. In, my opinion, the original poster wasn't claiming that the media wasn't covering the other incident at all, but not as frequent as the Santa Fe shooting. Thus my question. Are they covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

No, Wesker literally said they weren't covering it. And my question is, why WOULD they be covering it the same way, as a story where so many children died? Isn't it obvious that these stories wouldn't be covered the same way, regardless of bias?

I guess so.

Quote

Quote

Still doesn't change the frequency. If I told you that 2 in 1,000 people wins the lottery, does that make you more likely to win than if I said the statistic in a different fashion?

No, but you intentionally make it sound like it's less of a problem than it actually is.

I could just as easily say that you intentionally make it sound like it's more of a problem than it actually is.

Quote

Do you know how many schools have been shot up in my country in my lifetime? 1 (there was an incident in 2009 where someone shot at 3 people, thankfully no one died except himself, but that was in a vocational college, not sure if it counts). 2018 has barely started and you have had 17 school shootings with multiple fatalities. Yes, the US has a population about 20 times larger. But the math is pretty simple, and there is still no comparison in the frequency. If that trend continues (and not only does it continue but it gets more frequent), given that within 5 years about 1 in 1000 schools have been shot up, the same incident doesn't usually happen on the same school twice, you go to a school that hasn't already been shot up and most children spend at least 12 years at school, I think you can see that the odds of your school being shot up and you experiencing trauma as a result are A LOT higher than winning the lottery twice, even if you don't die.

Actually the 17 school shootings stat is inflated. Of the 18, actually, acclaimed school shootings, only 8 of them inloved multiple casualties or even multiple targets. The rest were accidental discharges and even a suicide in an empty school parking lot.

Quote

Quote

The argument is we need to restrict (or as some of the rally leaders and protesters stated outright ban) gun ownership because too many children are dying. Which, if that was their true intent, then there are far more things that kill way more children that are the cause of human nature, such as texting and driving.

Oh really? Like, protest for laws that prohibit texting and driving, or set up campaigns that raise awareness for how dangerous texting and driving is? Oh wait, these laws and campaigns already exist.

Yeah, a hard to read sign passing by or a minute long commercial here and there or if you go on a police department's facebook page or program. That's not the same as media pundits going on for hours at a time about how dangerous texting and driving is or giant rallies raising awareness about the dangers.

Quote

But there's only so much a government can do to restrict the irresponsible behaviour of some people. When it comes to guns however and the subject of school shootings in general, it hardly does ANYTHING substantial to restrict this behaviour, and it's because of people like you who keep distracting from the issue to go on tirades about how they should be talking about something else and disregard the fact that school shootings are an epidemic in the US and schools are no longer an environment where children can feel safe and learn.

Actually there are many restrictions and laws in place to prevent this kind of thing. They aren't being enforced is the problem. The Parkland shooter could've been arrested/committed several times over before he could shoot anyone. And we also have solutions of our own. In my state for example, it is now mandated that there should a police officer or a trained armed guardian for every 1,000 students if I have the number correctly.

The thing about trying to compare texting and driving to school shootings is, text and driving was made into a big deal when there were no laws about it on the books. Now just about every state, if not every state, has a law making it illegal. Some cities have taken it further and made phone use in general an offense. Groups got together to make these laws come about. They didn't just come out of nowhere. Yet when anyone tries to bring up any sort of laws which attempt to address the gun violence issue, they get throw stats about how drunk drivers kill more people than school shooters do.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 24, 2018, 04:29:10 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 24, 2018, 03:14:27 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 24, 2018, 01:25:08 AM

The argument was that the media isn't covering the shooting that was stopped by an armed person the way the Santa Fe shooting was. Totes replied with two articles "disproving" the original claim. In, my opinion, the original poster wasn't claiming that the media wasn't covering the other incident at all, but not as frequent as the Santa Fe shooting. Thus my question. Are they covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

No, Wesker literally said they weren't covering it. And my question is, why WOULD they be covering it the same way, as a story where so many children died? Isn't it obvious that these stories wouldn't be covered the same way, regardless of bias?

I guess so.

Quote

Quote

Still doesn't change the frequency. If I told you that 2 in 1,000 people wins the lottery, does that make you more likely to win than if I said the statistic in a different fashion?

No, but you intentionally make it sound like it's less of a problem than it actually is.

I could just as easily say that you intentionally make it sound like it's more of a problem than it actually is.

Quote

Do you know how many schools have been shot up in my country in my lifetime? 1 (there was an incident in 2009 where someone shot at 3 people, thankfully no one died except himself, but that was in a vocational college, not sure if it counts). 2018 has barely started and you have had 17 school shootings with multiple fatalities. Yes, the US has a population about 20 times larger. But the math is pretty simple, and there is still no comparison in the frequency. If that trend continues (and not only does it continue but it gets more frequent), given that within 5 years about 1 in 1000 schools have been shot up, the same incident doesn't usually happen on the same school twice, you go to a school that hasn't already been shot up and most children spend at least 12 years at school, I think you can see that the odds of your school being shot up and you experiencing trauma as a result are A LOT higher than winning the lottery twice, even if you don't die.

Actually the 17 school shootings stat is inflated. Of the 18, actually, acclaimed school shootings, only 8 of them inloved multiple casualties or even multiple targets. The rest were accidental discharges and even a suicide in an empty school parking lot.

Quote

Quote

The argument is we need to restrict (or as some of the rally leaders and protesters stated outright ban) gun ownership because too many children are dying. Which, if that was their true intent, then there are far more things that kill way more children that are the cause of human nature, such as texting and driving.

Oh really? Like, protest for laws that prohibit texting and driving, or set up campaigns that raise awareness for how dangerous texting and driving is? Oh wait, these laws and campaigns already exist.

Yeah, a hard to read sign passing by or a minute long commercial here and there or if you go on a police department's facebook page or program. That's not the same as media pundits going on for hours at a time about how dangerous texting and driving is or giant rallies raising awareness about the dangers.

Quote

But there's only so much a government can do to restrict the irresponsible behaviour of some people. When it comes to guns however and the subject of school shootings in general, it hardly does ANYTHING substantial to restrict this behaviour, and it's because of people like you who keep distracting from the issue to go on tirades about how they should be talking about something else and disregard the fact that school shootings are an epidemic in the US and schools are no longer an environment where children can feel safe and learn.

Actually there are many restrictions and laws in place to prevent this kind of thing. They aren't being enforced is the problem. The Parkland shooter could've been arrested/committed several times over before he could shoot anyone. And we also have solutions of our own. In my state for example, it is now mandated that there should a police officer or a trained armed guardian for every 1,000 students if I have the number correctly.

The thing about trying to compare texting and driving to school shootings is, text and driving was made into a big deal when there were no laws about it on the books. Now just about every state, if not every state, has a law making it illegal. Some cities have taken it further and made phone use in general an offense. Groups got together to make these laws come about. They didn't just come out of nowhere. Yet when anyone tries to bring up any sort of laws which attempt to address the gun violence issue, they get throw stats about how drunk drivers kill more people than school shooters do.

They also get thrown stats on how the proposed guns laws wouldn't work and only hinder law abiding citizens.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 24, 2018, 10:45:21 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 24, 2018, 04:29:10 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 24, 2018, 03:14:27 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on May 24, 2018, 01:25:08 AM

The argument was that the media isn't covering the shooting that was stopped by an armed person the way the Santa Fe shooting was. Totes replied with two articles "disproving" the original claim. In, my opinion, the original poster wasn't claiming that the media wasn't covering the other incident at all, but not as frequent as the Santa Fe shooting. Thus my question. Are they covering the story like they are with the Santa Fe shooting?

No, Wesker literally said they weren't covering it. And my question is, why WOULD they be covering it the same way, as a story where so many children died? Isn't it obvious that these stories wouldn't be covered the same way, regardless of bias?

I guess so.

Quote

Quote

Still doesn't change the frequency. If I told you that 2 in 1,000 people wins the lottery, does that make you more likely to win than if I said the statistic in a different fashion?

No, but you intentionally make it sound like it's less of a problem than it actually is.

I could just as easily say that you intentionally make it sound like it's more of a problem than it actually is.

Quote

Do you know how many schools have been shot up in my country in my lifetime? 1 (there was an incident in 2009 where someone shot at 3 people, thankfully no one died except himself, but that was in a vocational college, not sure if it counts). 2018 has barely started and you have had 17 school shootings with multiple fatalities. Yes, the US has a population about 20 times larger. But the math is pretty simple, and there is still no comparison in the frequency. If that trend continues (and not only does it continue but it gets more frequent), given that within 5 years about 1 in 1000 schools have been shot up, the same incident doesn't usually happen on the same school twice, you go to a school that hasn't already been shot up and most children spend at least 12 years at school, I think you can see that the odds of your school being shot up and you experiencing trauma as a result are A LOT higher than winning the lottery twice, even if you don't die.

Actually the 17 school shootings stat is inflated. Of the 18, actually, acclaimed school shootings, only 8 of them inloved multiple casualties or even multiple targets. The rest were accidental discharges and even a suicide in an empty school parking lot.

Quote

Quote

The argument is we need to restrict (or as some of the rally leaders and protesters stated outright ban) gun ownership because too many children are dying. Which, if that was their true intent, then there are far more things that kill way more children that are the cause of human nature, such as texting and driving.

Oh really? Like, protest for laws that prohibit texting and driving, or set up campaigns that raise awareness for how dangerous texting and driving is? Oh wait, these laws and campaigns already exist.

Yeah, a hard to read sign passing by or a minute long commercial here and there or if you go on a police department's facebook page or program. That's not the same as media pundits going on for hours at a time about how dangerous texting and driving is or giant rallies raising awareness about the dangers.

Quote

But there's only so much a government can do to restrict the irresponsible behaviour of some people. When it comes to guns however and the subject of school shootings in general, it hardly does ANYTHING substantial to restrict this behaviour, and it's because of people like you who keep distracting from the issue to go on tirades about how they should be talking about something else and disregard the fact that school shootings are an epidemic in the US and schools are no longer an environment where children can feel safe and learn.

Actually there are many restrictions and laws in place to prevent this kind of thing. They aren't being enforced is the problem. The Parkland shooter could've been arrested/committed several times over before he could shoot anyone. And we also have solutions of our own. In my state for example, it is now mandated that there should a police officer or a trained armed guardian for every 1,000 students if I have the number correctly.

The thing about trying to compare texting and driving to school shootings is, text and driving was made into a big deal when there were no laws about it on the books. Now just about every state, if not every state, has a law making it illegal. Some cities have taken it further and made phone use in general an offense. Groups got together to make these laws come about. They didn't just come out of nowhere. Yet when anyone tries to bring up any sort of laws which attempt to address the gun violence issue, they get throw stats about how drunk drivers kill more people than school shooters do.

They also get thrown stats on how the proposed guns laws wouldn't work and only hinder law abiding citizens.

Okay, lets get one thing out of the way....


If NOBODY had a gun, there would be ZERO gun related deaths and murders. Correct?

So there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between gun ownership and people getting killed

It has been shown time and time again, you could own a gun and have the best of intentions with it.... But if your boy gets embarrassed at school, all bets are off.

Okay, lets get one thing out of the way....


If NOBODY had a gun, there would be ZERO gun related deaths and murders. Correct?

Correct.

So there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between gun ownership and people getting killed

There are multiple ways of implementing murder and mass murder. In fact, the largest school massacre in the US didn't involved any firearm

It has been shown time and time again, you could own a gun and have the best of intentions with it.... But if your boy gets embarrassed at school, all bets are off.

Correct.

Tell me how not allowing someone who isn't mentally capable of handling their own finances to own a gun isn't a good idea.  Mind you, I'm not talking the ones that do so out of choice, like having a financial advisor, but legitimately have someone with power of attorney over their banking.  Tell me how having background checks at gun shows on all sales is a bad idea.

Tell me how not allowing someone who isn't mentally capable of handling their own finances to own a gun isn't a good idea.  Mind you, I'm not talking the ones that do so out of choice, like having a financial advisor, but legitimately have someone with power of attorney over their banking.  Tell me how having background checks at gun shows on all sales is a bad idea.

If giving power of attorney to someone else for their banking is the only thing then why bar them from gun ownership? You may have a point if this was compounded with other things that may be considered mentally ill. As for gun shows. All gun shows require FFLs to run background checks. Tge only people who are exempt are private sellers amd that happens far more often outside of gun shows. The reason why we shouldn't have background checks on private sales is because they don't work.

Quote

Still doesn't change the frequency. If I told you that 2 in 1,000 people wins the lottery, does that make you more likely to win than if I said the statistic in a different fashion?

No, but you intentionally make it sound like it's less of a problem than it actually is.

I could just as easily say that you intentionally make it sound like it's more of a problem than it actually is. [/quote]

It's really telling how some Americans are willing to minimize the issue in order to avoid having to face the fact that their gun culture is fucked up.

Actually the 17 school shootings stat is inflated. Of the 18, actually, acclaimed school shootings, only 8 of them inloved multiple casualties or even multiple targets. The rest were accidental discharges and even a suicide in an empty school parking lot.

Who said anything about multiple casualties and whatnot? Besides the shooting I mentioned that happened in my country didn't have casualties either. This changes nothing. I guess you can disregard the suicide. As for the accidenal discharges? Well, does that make anything better? If anything it goes to show you should fix your gun issue. Accidental discharges of guns at schools is something that never happens in other countries. More minimization of the issue. Besides, would it change that much if I backtracked and said that as much school shootings as have ever happened in Europe happen in the US in a single year, instead of half a year?

Yeah, a hard to read sign passing by or a minute long commercial here and there or if you go on a police department's facebook page or program. That's not the same as media pundits going on for hours at a time about how dangerous texting and driving is or giant rallies raising awareness about the dangers.[/quote[

More deflection. You clearly want to avoid addressing the issue.

Quote

Actually there are many restrictions and laws in place to prevent this kind of thing. They aren't being enforced is the problem.

Yes, that's one of the problems. Another problem is that a lot of the restrictions are baby steps, and they don't work.

Quote

The Parkland shooter could've been arrested/committed several times over before he could shoot anyone. And we also have solutions of our own. In my state for example, it is now mandated that there should a police officer or a trained armed guardian for every 1,000 students if I have the number correctly.

It's very telling that armed guardians are necessary in your schools. And the Parkland shooter was an exception. I mean, they still dropped the ball, but still an exception. He should never have even been able to commit this crime.

Quote

They also get thrown stats on how the proposed guns laws wouldn't work and only hinder law abiding citizens.

So your country is the only country in the developed world where gun control wouldn't work, and you know that for sure even though no serious plan to do that has been implemented. No, the issue is, again, that any restrictions you implement are baby steps, because if anyone tried to take drastic measures, the gun lobby would be unhappy. Also people would throw hissy fits, because the NRA and gun companies have somehow convinced everyone that you can't be considered American unless you have a small army's worth of firearms and ammunition in your shed.