http://abcnews.go.com/US/18-school-shootings-us-year-group/story?id=53091125
That's like six weeks right? Are we seriously clocking three of these fucking embarrassments per week?
All of these promising young lives snuffed out in a matter of minutes is an embarrassment ?
shareI believe or should I say...a have to believe you hit the question mark accidentally...you surely meant to hit the exclamation point...right? Because...of course it is an embarrassment! How could anyone be proud of a statistic like that? Would love to discuss this...but I unfortunately have to attend a service for two slain police officers...killed in the line of duty by senseless but seemingly unavoidable gun violence...
shareSo, when you attend that service you're going to say " I'm so embarrassed for your loss ? "
shareI honestly think you're both singing off the same sheet here DF and DB.
If you did but know it.
I don't understand this comment, Dazed.
shareI just think you're both incredibly sad and feeling helpless.
shareYes, I'm sad, profoundly so because I have a very empathetic nature. Apart from that, I don't like being compared to DF. Have you ever seen me creating deliberately provocative threads of a shallow nature ?
shareI think that is fair...obviously sad...but yes helpless as well. As I said earlier...might just be time to start not giving a fuck...seems to be en vogue.
shareI am at a loss...I fail to see what pride you could possibly derive from such a statistic. And as far as your tasteless quip...no...I escorted one of the matriarchs of the city...a pillar of the community...my aunt Virgie. I signed a large check and shook hands with people I have not seen in close to thirty years. I have no shame for the heroes that gave the ultimate sacrifice...but for the breakdown, or lack of a system that would keep illegally obtained firearms from a sadistic cold blooded killer with a felonious record? Yeah...that should embarrass us all.
shareLook who's talking about tasteless suddenly and how you even read pride into that to begin with is what I'm at a loss with.
share
According to Wikipedia, there have been 212 school shooting in the 21st century. That's an average of 12.4 shootings/year,
or about one per month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States
😎
Shit...
shareAppreciate the link movieman! Yes 212 in the 17 years that constitute the 21st century...only 204 in the previous century...
During the 1970s there were 30 (1970 (5 shootings), 71 (2), 73 (2), 74 (4), 75 (3), 76 (3), 77, 78 (7), 79 (3)).
During the 1980s there were 39 (1980 (4 shootings), 81 (3), 82 (3), 83, 84 (4), 85 (5), 86 (5), 87 (5), 88 (6), 89 (3)).
During the 1990s there were 63 (1990 (2 shootings), 91 (6), 92 (6), 93 (9), 94 (10), 95 (4), 96 (7), 97 (6), 98 (7), 99 (6)).
Note the rise from decade to decade...no drops.
Yes, it's going up which is sad.
😎
I knew we could find common ground👍
share
Shootings are terrible no matter where they occur.
😎
Sure...I just really hate it that it happens more here...where I live...than in any other civilized nation on earth...
share
But that's not true, feet. You think it is because the Main Stream Media is constantly drumming that false narrative into your brain. That's because their ultimate goal is to disarm the population so that the Federal Government can gain total control, thus achieving their "Socialist Utopia". That's the first thing every Totalitarian Regime does, disarm the population.
Actually the USA is ranked 14th in the world in the Murder Rate Per Capita:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate
But the Main Stream Media will never tell you that because it doesn't fit their Socialist agenda.
😎
Two problems with your list...
It lists murders...not necessarily by gun shot
And I did take the time to choose my words...I said civilized nations...I would assume you and I would agree that the countries named are less than civilized by American standards.
Why do you say the other countries ahead of the US are "less than civilized by American standards"? What does that mean? So you think countries like India, Indonesia, South Africa and China are "less than civilized"? Why do you think that? Are you saying that because they're not white European countries they're "less than civilized"? That's racist, feet.
😎
Although certainly not a racist remark...you could have a point as the term I should have employed is developed rather than civilized. Antiquated would be a more correct assessment of the term I used...but I do apologize to anyone that took offense. As for the nations you listed...none are considered developed...although Hong Kong is...you were close!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries
Yes, "developed" is a better word to use here.
😎
Here a more concise list...it details gun violence in nations around the globe and while ranked 31st in the world...well the list speaks for itself...none of the other countries represent the modern civility I would hope would be associated with theUS. Made worse is the comparison with similarly advanced nations...
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries
Disarming a population to achieve a socialist utopia? Jesus Christ...
share
Well there certainly wouldn't be any guns in Utopia, right? And that's the ultimate goal of the Left, a Socialist Utopia.
😎
Define what this Socialist state is. Didn't know gun control was a "socialist" thing when it's long been supported bipartisanly in other nations.
share
You're an intelligent person Retro, so you know exactly[/b] what a [b]"Socialist Utopia" is. But if you want to play uninformed, here are a bunch of images which explain exactly what it is. Enjoy:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrJ7J.9GopaDfwATEBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyYmVpdmJmBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjQ1MTdfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=socialist+utopia&fr=yfp-t-s
Every harcore right wing partsian has their own vague boogeyman scenario of what Socialism entails where anything can be degraded as Socialism for politcial purposes - as it's been throughout history. In Australia we have Universal health care and gun control, and we're not Stalinist Russia with outlawed capitalism or whatever.
share
"partsian"??
I'm going to guess that the word you wanted there was "partisan", Retro.
And every hard core left wing partisan has their rose colored, wet dream concept of a Socialist Utopia. And everyone who opposes them is their personal boogeyman. Btw, no
such "utopia" exists, or probably ever will because it is the antithesis of freedom.
😎
During the 1st decade there were 60 (2000 (5 shootings), 01 (5), 02 (7), 03 (4), 05 (5), 06 (11), 07 (5), 08 (11), 09 (7))
During the 2010s (as of 14 February 2018) there were 143 shootings (2010 (11 shootings), 11 (7), 12 (11), 13 (26), 14 (36), 15 (21), 16 (15), 17 (9), 18 (7)).
Once again...notice the rise...60 in the first decade...143 this decade and it is only 4/5 complete.
I could understand your stance...if the stats leveled off...but they are on the rise and have been since the seventies. Since the 80s there has been at least two school shootings every year to present. As I said earlier...these numbers are embarrassing...and not showing any sign of improvement.
True. We need metal detectors and armed security guards and/or police in schools. We have those at our local Courthouse, and there's never been a shooting there. We also need to get rid of those moronic signs which read NO GUNS ALLOWED ON PREMISES! That's absurd, because it's basically an open invitation to a shooter because he knows that the people are basically defenseless. They should replace those signs with ones which read ARMED SECURITY PERSONNEL ON PREMISES!
That would make a potential shooter stop and think.
😎
Or...something else...maybe?
share
Like what?
😎
Well first I would start with conversation...one with an attention to ideas rather than mandates...
share
Huh?
😎
A conversation..you know what those are. More than one person gets together and communicates ideas opinion concerns etc...finds common ground and peruse solutions.
Employing statistics probably would not hurt. Willingness to compromise would also probably aid in the objective.
Making sure to avoid slippery slopes like mandates or debates for that matter would also be ideal...no one wants to feel strong armed and endless bickering accomplishes nothing. It would definitely be a time for the grown in the room to show their worth.
Anyway...that is where I would start...
Oh yeah, that will definitely solve the problem.
😎
I never claimed it as the solution...merely where to begin...I even said so twice. Am I to assume you are more of the empty mandate type...if so...we all might want to seriously consider my other suggestion...that being to start embracing an I don't give a fuck stance...I see no answers to a problem even you admit exists if conversation and compromise can't even be suggested.
shareI don't like Mondays
shareI apologize just realized what inspired the song, it is sad that the trench coat mafia from columbine in the 90's and it seems like every months there's a school shooting. It's messed up. I empathsize with the familys who have to go through such pain on a national level.
shareThis shooting has affected me like none before.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/02/15/student-survivor-need-action-or-students-die-sot-newday.cnn
No, we are not. That is a very misleading statistic.
While school shootings are a serious problem, there have been frequent exaggerations about just how common they are.
This story was cookedup by Everytown for Gun Safety, a pro gun-control group.
Several of these "shooting" were individuals committing suicide on campus and many others were of stray bullets passing through classroom walls with no injuries. In only a few cases were people other than the shooter actually harmed. Of the 17 shooting before Wednesday's shooting in Florida, three students died; roughly 30 - 35 were injured according to The Daily Wire. Even the left leaning Washington Post said "Everytown has long inflated its total by including incidents of gunfire that are really not school shooting,"
http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/15/6-common-media-myths-gun-control?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRnM1lqVXlPREJqTWpNdyIsInQiOiJNY3p4dmF2WTNVd2pHa25PYWxlSjRQdmhsdkZaY0xGeUhLbHJIcFwvYVVUUWVsSkpEZlZlQlI3cTFFdng5RGlLS3NiYjZESnVidGZhc09sa1JWdDc5ZVRSSnJteFd0TUh4YXJHXC9jQjJLenF3WDBCb1pRdkM5OVoxU2l2ZFlkVFZVMGdlamY5MW51RWowTFV3dUhsejIxQT09In0%3D
It's fake news.
😎
Whatever the number,they're have been too many shot going to school.
share
Yes, this is true, but this is the society we live in now. I'm not sure why, but part of it has to do with the secularization of our culture, and the departure from old values. Kids just would not have thought of this when I was growing up in the 50s.
😎
Yeah the stories are cooked up..and people are still not getting the core issue. A gun no matter what type does not make a person go to school and kill people. The person has already decided to kill people, the gun just happened to be what he chose. He could have killed with bombs, with vehicles ,with a knife..all of which are easily available. Getting rid of rifles is not going to make these people not want to kill people. Its simply ignorant to believe these people would just not harm people because they didn't have access to a firearm. When I was younger, it was not uncommon for people to have guns in their vehicles or even the lockers, yet we did not have to worry about mass shootings even with many weapons on campus. Its not the guns, its the killers themselves that are the problem.
Amen. There was a caller on Rush today who said he went to a country school, and pretty much all the guys had guns in their rifle rack in their pickup trucks, and drove them to school. And nobody was ever shot.
The problem I believe is the continued secularization and politicization of everything by the Left. This has led to getting away from traditional values as taught by families and the church. It's just the society we have now. The Left pushes violent video games and movies, and devalues religion, and then they wonder why kids are like this.
😎
Yes. The statistic is total BS not that the media gives a crap and nobody checks up on it.
shareThank you, MovieMan for this post! I just heard the same thing and it's terrible that the news is still running with this. What's worse is people are believing this! If that were true there would be approximately 3 per week. I've been hearing more about flu deaths than school shootings in recent weeks and I watch a fair amount of news.
It's so irresponsible to report it this way.
Don't get me wrong, ONE school shooting is too many but it makes no sense to include a suicide in front of a school that has been shut down for 7 months with no children or staff anywhere. That is very misleading to count that along with many other ones on the list.
You're welcome, NormaandNorm, and amen.
😎
As far as I can tell Europe(740 million people) Has had Zero School shootings so far in 2018, and only one in 2017.
Just access to guns alone, or is the mental health situation far worse in us?
Since this shooting on Wednesday, there have been 12 copycat threats reported in various schools across the country, if that sheds any light on the mindset involved. One was delivered as something akin to, " Florida, round two! "
shareI do not know the answer to your question...I find it difficult to even start a conversation with my fellow countrymen on the topic. I can tell you that each component is broken in The US. The sides are polarized. One group believing total disarmament to be the answer...another believes we just have yet to throw enough guns at the problem...and out of all this endless bickering...I have no clue as to the mental health aspect as it mysteriously gets swept under the rug every time this happens...and it seems to happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME these days!!! I was always under the impression that Americans loved family above all else...and as children are the very embodiment of family it would stand to reason that that love would be communicated the loudest for them...until I saw their cold little bodies under those sheets in Sandy Hook...and nothing changed...and since...so many young lives lost...and nothing changes...it was then I realized...everything I believed true of my nations love for family...it was a ruse...we are a selfish people. I do not know if that satisfies your curiosity, but that is my answer...
share
This is due to the Left secularizing and politicizing everything, and pushing our culture away from the traditional values of family and church, and towards the all powerful State. I'm an Agnostic, but I agree with everything that Christian churches teach. The Left has been pushing the State as the official religion, and demonizing Christianity. They have also demonized the family unit, and have replaced it with the State as the most important thing in a child's life.
And Hollyweird has pushed sex, drugs and extreme violence in their movies and video games. This breeds a contempt for life in young people. It's no wonder we are where we are. But this is our society now, and it's not going to change in the near future. The Left has brought about the society they want.
Meanwhile, the Welfare System has destroyed Black family. Before the Great Society, the LBJ Bullshit, and Welfare, only 17% of black children were born into a single parent family. Now it's 87% because the bass-ackwards Welfare System makes it financially beneficial to NOT be married, and gives single mothers more money for every additional illegitimate child she bears. That's rewarding bad behavior! The fathers leave the homes and the kids wander the streets, and the gangs are their father. And young black men kill other young black men at an alarming rate (usually over drugs), especially in cities like Chicago (murder capital of the US) where the Democrats are in control.
When I was growing up in the 50s we didn't have this violence and school shootings because we were taught they were wrong. I was listening to Rush today and one of the callers said he grew up in a country school and all the guys had guns in their rifle rack in their pickup trucks which they drove to school. And there were NO school shooting. Guns are NOT the problem.
This problem is that the Left has destroyed our society.
😎
Europe is on average more secular, a big consumer of Hollywood-material and violent games, And Definitely have more welfare on average than in us. Still, it's more than 3years, since the last time anybody got shot to death in a European school.
If left-influencing of culture is creating more mass shooters, you would think the problem at least should be equally big outside us.
But then countries in Europe have cultures and populations which are not anywhere near as diverse as in the US.
We are much more diverse here, which leads to conflicts. Also we have a much larger population than any European country. Sweden has a population of 9,956,705. The US has a population of 326,766,748 which is almost 40 times larger. You will have more incidents in such a large population.
I'm not sure why the same effect has not occurred in Europe, though. Perhaps since they are much older civilizations, they have already gone through their more violent stages. Perhaps our civilization is just at the teenager stage.
😎
Oh gee MMC2 it can't possibly be the most simplest and researched answer that gun control reduces gun murder. Population differences and diversity in the US? Do you think every country with gun control outside the US are remote, monocultural outposts? BTW the higest rates of gun murder occur in a more sparsely populated Red States such as Alabama and Mississippi.
And for some really annoying reason my response space gets smaller and smaller. In response to your last comment, what constitutes "hardcore left wing" partsianship? How does more equal access to education and health care, with gun control, on par with other nations restrict freedom? What a stereotypical talking point- this whatever is said to make us more equal means less freedom. It does not make a shred of sense and demonstrates the effects of McCarthyism and brainwashing that says anything different is a Commie plot and a means to subvert capitalism - capitalism taken as a strict notion of concentrating wealth and power and forbidding taxes towards a so-called "wellfare state", with a dog eat dog world and unequal outcomes and disparities and discrimination seen as the price for freedom. Deriving strength from this resulting in a house of cards and cycles of economic collaspes.
Some years back, I had a supervisor on the job who was one of those gun-happy nuts. He had acquired quite a private arsenal of weapons. In addition, he had a state-of-the art security system installed in his home and lived in the newest & best neighborhood in the community, so his home was more than adequately protected. He no longer hunted and only occasionally went to a gun range to play with one of his toys. One day, he came whining to me because he had just experienced an unexpected windfall and wanted to use it to buy an assault rifle but his wife wouldn't let him because she had other & better plans for the money. She won.
shareInstead of wasting time arguing about this, why don't we concentrate on solutions, Retro? The logical solution is to put metal detectors and armed guards in schools. Problem solved imho.
We use metal detectors and armed guards to protect us and anything of value in our society. We use them to protect us at the airport, at the bank, at the courthouse and at all government buildings. We use them to protect our politicians (even the anti gun, anti 2nd amendment ones) and government officials. Have you ever entered a government building in Washington DC? It's a production number.
But when was the last shooting at any of these places? They're very rare because of the security measures. We have these measures of our local courthouse, and there's never been a shooting there. Why should we not use them to protect our precious children in schools in the same manner?
And let's get rid of those idiotic signs which read "No Guns Allowed on Premises". What they really means is "Defenseless Victims Here". We should replace them with signs which read "Armed Security Personnel On Premises."
And before you say that I'm a "gun nut", I have no problem with banning "bump stocks", or making background checks tougher. These are both good ideas.
PS And when people react negatively to the idea of "concealed carry" in schools, they're ignoring the fact that we already HAVE concealed carry in schools, but it's the shooters who are the ones with cc.
😎
I never can fathom freedom being associated with armed guards and metal detectors everywhere and having to live with the possibility of someone going on a mass shooting spree in a public place with easily purchased assault weapons. Nevertheless, banning bump stocks and background checks is of course the step in the right direction despite the NRA refusing to compromise, having feed fear for profits.
share
Do you ever fly on a commercial flight, Retro? What would you call that?
Btw, I don't like it any more than you do, but that is the world we live in now.
😎
Re my above post, that number is now reported to be at 546 and continues to grow.
shareIt's time to amend the 2nd Amendment. At the time of the Constitution there were very few types of guns available, unlike today, sadly.
shareCouldn't agree more. For god's sake, it was written over 220 years ago, in the 18th century. It had a purpose when it was written, and it was written specifically about having "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
It made sense then, which was only a mere 15 years after the States won independence from British rule in a revolutionary war. IOW, the US as a country was only 15 years old then, and comprised of only 13 states!
Meanwhile, a gun culture was established and has grown to what we have today, with the NRA representing and lobbying for the gun manufacturers.
Owning guns even made sense for many for 100 or so years afterwards. To hunt and provide necessary food, to protect oneself, family, and livestock, in rural areas. Most of the continent was rural back then.
There were no automatic or even semi-automatic guns back then.
I don't like this gun culture that's evolved, and all that goes with it.
That said, I will also say the problem goes deeper. It's hardly normal behaviour to go on a shooting spree, whether or not one owns a gun.
Very well said. Thank you!
shareThere were no automatic or even semi-automatic guns back then.
There weren't any Gatling guns back in 1791, which were designed and used for warfare, and wouldn't be for another 50+ years. But anyway, yeah.
I'm so glad those high school kids are organising and marching. I can't even imagine what it must be like for them, living in fear for their *lives* just going to school! It's not like they have a choice about it, unless their parents can and are willing to home school.
I've never bought the argument that the Founding Fathers didn't expect guns to evolve. Here's a few "assault rifles" from the late 1700's:
"Enter the Girandoni air rifle. The Girandoni air rifle is a repeating rifle capable of firing 22 shots in under a minute without a reload — and Meriwether Lewis’s air gun was one such firearm. Lewis’s rifle was a .46 caliber, magazine-fed repeating gun capable of shooting 22 shots in under a minute."WOW..22 shots in under a minute of .46caliber ammunition. That ain't no musket!!!
"The Belton flintlock was offered to Congress in 1777. It was capable of firing up to either sixteen or twenty rounds within either sixteen, ten, or five seconds. There are no known surviving examples but it was believed to function similar to a roman candle. Congress wanted a slower rate of fire but balked when they learned how much it would cost." It might not have been massed produced, but the technology was there.
"The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock[1] revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest[2]."
Basically, its silly to think that the founding fathers didn't anticipate rapid fire weaponry in the future. The 19th Century saw a HUGE advancement in rapid fire guns, yet no one demanded the 2nd Amendment be repealed?
"I've never bought the argument that the Founding Fathers didn't expect guns to evolve."
No one said that. What they didn't expect or anticipate was automatic or semi-automatic guns being purchased and owned by civilians, and used against other civilians.
Again, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was clear.
I did learn today that MMC2 has a AR-15. comforting.
sharePlus, he has mentioned firing his weapons in celebration during holidays which in many jurisdictions qualifies as either illegal or criminal discharge of a firearm.
shareGood god. He's a prime example of someone who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, let alone an AR-15.
shareCatbookss The Supreme Court recently agreed that the 2nd Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home.
Padeen, that doesn't change my mind. It's not why the 2nd Amendment was written, and isn't what it says.
Honestly, I have no objection to some ownership of guns, although I would prefer we lived in a world where no one wanted or felt they needed one.
I once owned a gun myself. As a responsible person, I did go learn how to shoot and take care of it property. In fact, I was a pretty good shot, and found shooting it on the practice range kind of fun. At first.
What is alarming to me is that we're living in a gun culture, with a powerful lobby behind and promoting it. There are way too many guns in this country as a result.
There's no doubt that the 2nd Amendment is vague, however, most Constitutional Lawyers and the Supreme Court agree it goes beyond the "Well Regulated Militia" argument.
Sadly, we live in a sick world and I strongly believe citizens have that right to protect themselves, family and home with semi-auto weapons. Luckily, I live in a small, sleepy town where owning a gun for self defense is not necessary. Unfortunately, there are millions of people who live in high crime areas and the bad guys are armed with the weapons that gun control advocates want banned.
It's not vague, and the "well regulated militia" isn't merely an argument. This is what it says, in its entirety:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Why on earth would you support private citizens having semi-automatic weapons? Why isn't a revolver or 6-shooter enough for protection??
Yes, unfortunately we do live in a sick world where there are not only high crime areas, but there are other people who are motivated to harm others -- including their own family members, wives, husbands, children, relatives, someone sleeping with their wives or husbands, or they suspect is, on and on.
I don't buy the "then only the bad guys will have guns" argument against more gun control. Guns *are* out of control in this country.
I put my faith into the Supreme Court and Constitutional Lawyers to make these decisions and they seem adamant on the "Shall not be infringed part." Like I said before, they believe the 2nd Amendment goes beyond "A Well Regulated Militia."
Why should private citizens have semi autos? Well, they a multitude of uses and are used by hunters, ranchers and target shooters. Plus, most bad guys aren't carrying a revolver, they are strapped with Glocks and the like.
Look up Ruger Mini 14 vs AR-15. One is classified as an "Assault Rifle" and the other isn't, even though they shoot the same caliber and have the same magazine capacity. The only difference is that one looks scary and the other doesn't. Therefore, an Assault rifle ban won't do anything.
Do you always put your faith in the Supreme Court's decisions, or is it only when it matches your own beliefs? I don't know you, but my guess is the latter.
"Shall not be infringed [upon]" is directly related to "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Sorry, but there is no denying that.
Why would hunters, ranchers, and target shooters *need* automatic or semi-automatic weapons? Let's be honest here, as doubtful as it is that will happen, no one *needs* more than 6 rounds to protect themselves. Unless they're a p!ss-poor shot, in which case they probably shouldn't own a gun to begin with.
I don't care whether one assault rifle or another looks scary or doesn't. There's no need for them to be in the hands of civilians.
Heck no I don't always put my faith into the Supreme Court, but I ultimately accept their decisions because that's how this country works.
The 2nd Amendment has been debated to death and there are many interpretations on what it means. This is why I leave it up to the Constitution Lawyers who decipher it.
I never said they need automatic weapons. If you want automatic weapon, you need a Class III License and deep pockets. Semiautomatics have a multitude of uses as I mentioned before. And its the right to bear arms, not the need to bear arms. We have lots of things in life that we don't "need".
As doubtful as it will happen? There are over 1 million home invasions/break ins a year, not counting other violent crime.
Your last comment is just an opinion, not a fact. Question: If semi automatics were ever banned, would you support gun confiscation? There's over 300 Million guns in America right now, a large majority semi automatic. A gun buy back won't work like in Australia and people aren't going to just give up their 2nd Amendment rights.