"Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury"
Just a tad misleading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.82ea612a8cf5
I never said there had been 18 school shootings this year.
The news reports that I referenced were that this was the 6th or 8th this year here there had been injuries or fatalities which ties in with the Washington Post article.
"Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury"
We probably don't disagree at all. I shouldn't have worded it as a yes/no, I know it is variable, just paying the price now for sloppy/quick posting. I just edited it, to help with that. And yes, it can actually be "positive" in some ways (when on the lower end of the scale and with proper nurture). I spent hours researching it years ago, and it is quite fascinating.
That was my "slippery slope" disclaimer.
For whatever it is worth Mike, please note that 'Everytown', which is really 'Everytown for Gun Safety' is a hard- left, anti- gun faction that has the goal of unilateral personal disarmament. Started by and still largely financed by former N.Y.C. mayor Michael Bloomberg.
I am not saying they are good nor bad, merely pointing out that the information from them is coming from a very staunchly left (anti- gun) group, just as any information from the NRA would be from a very staunchly right (pro- gun) group. As a non- American, I just wanted you to be aware of where this information is sourced and the fact that they have a very direct, very deliberate and very, very hard- line view on this issue. As does a considerable faction of US news reporting agencies, with the majority seeming to be left- leaning at the current time.
Again, we are wading hip- deep into an extremely derisive, polar issue here in the US. In fact, I am amazed that this thread is 1) still open and 2) still has not been moved to the arena. My compliments to all who are participating, as well as certainly some who are not participating but would do so with perhaps too 'heavy a hand'.
Brian
Only reason I quoted everytown is it was quoted in the Washington Post article which was being used to demonstrate that I was incorrect about claiming 18, which actually I hadn't
Even Everytown only has 5 school shootings in hours this year which is in line with what was stated in my post (although Possibly the BBC & The Guardian were using them as source, its not clear).
The 18 figure (which ironically I believe actually came from yourself initially in this thread which is maybe where Rhino got confused) ) includes such things as the suicide at a school which had been closed for 7 months
If I have in any way inadvertently accused you of any misdeed or miss- statement in this thread, I apologize Mike and certainly did not mean to do so.
Yep, it was me who said that this was the 18th "school shooting" of 2018. And that was probably a very misleading report I should not have quoted as I did not research it at all before I posted that- shame on me (seriously).
Now, to turn a completely different corner in this discussion: while tragedies such as this Florida shooting get vast amounts of attention, they are relatively rare and statistically almost insignificant in actual fact.
the risk of an American to be shot in a public school approaches zero in actual fact. It is very emotionally moving but in reality, does not reflect much actual risk in the US of attending our public school system.
Which brings us to the really hard question that no one wants to state aloud: do we <really> have a gun problem in the US or is it merely exaggerated emphasis on a meaningless statistic?
.... But for some bizarre reason we won't do what is necessary to protect our children. Speaks volumes about our society.
Nobody here, that I am aware of, worships guns. Many cherish their rights, though.
So now cue the call for more "gun control" laws that would NOT have prevented this tragedy (in a "gun free zone") but WILL make it harder for good people.
So what do you put on the alter in your batcave? Maybe it's where you worship at the alter of global warming?
...or where you strive for Nirvana or a socialist utopia maybe. Or are we now both being a bit ridiculous?
Even if you took away almost all guns, they still exist and would still have to be addressed. It is worthy to note another view about guns, too. They are an equalizer. Pretty much all other weapons require some type of physical strength or stamina to wield, allowing the physically powerful to dominate everyone else. And the more physical strength/stamina the more effective such domination becomes. Guns allow women to be more equal with men, and the less wealthy, weaker, older, sicker, or disabled to have effective protection. In a strange sort of way, it fits nicely with the concept of democracy and voting equality (1 citizen, 1 vote).
Most [USA] gun owners have many guns each. It isn't paranoia or hoarding- you can really only use one at any given time and, for carry, 1 or 2 is all that is generally practical. I think four factors explain it best: 1) Many owners upgrade several times as they look for what they like the most or as newer technology comes available and retain what they previously purchased. 2) Many are collectors and like the variety and design. 3) There are different roles for different weapons- one might have a home protection gun, a full-sized carry gun, a smaller concealed gun, hunting guns, several target guns, training guns, etc. 4) Some engage in repair and restoration and/or speculation.
I am not a collector nor hunter and have only what I need for different roles (#3, above), which currently amounts to 4 roles (home defense, large carry, small carry, target) with one upgrade duplication for a total of 5, all pistols.
If I had the money (purchase, upkeep, taxes, insurance) and space, I would certainly have more than one car and one motorcycle
How about a simple solution of regulating the sale of assault weapons or not rolling back regulations banning sale of weapons of mentally ill persons? Speaks volumes about a segment of our society, indeed.....
1) So called "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than typical hunting rifles. They are just "scary looking". The AR-15 (which is what is generally meant by the non-sense term "assault weapon") is just the common, default, popular, modern, non-military, non-automatic, multipurpose rife of this century. The rounds it shoots are actually pretty weak. What makes it so popular is that it is extremely reliable, has wide multi-manufacturer support and compatibility, and lots of available accessories (lights, scopes, handles, straps, lasers, etc); the same accessories also available for every other design of rifle.
2) All gun sales are very much regulated, already.
3) It is already illegal to buy, own, possess, or use guns for a long list of persons.
4) What is being rolled back is not selling to "mentally ill persons", it is to people that could be CLASSIFIED as "mentally ill" when, in fact, that is not at all what was being done. Having someone else do your finances doesn't make one mentally ill.
Interesting that guns are viewed as an equalizer even with adequate law enforcement (police).
Without getting too personal, since you have been candid about being vertically challenged, did you encounter juvenile bullying and did that motivate your purchase of a variety of handguns?
In my mind, one handgun to protect against home intruders is justifiable.
Also, military veterans, especially combat veterans (with safeguards against PTSD) would have a moral high ground for gun ownership.
I know the Second Amendment is relevant and important to many people, but they did not have the AR-15 in 1791.
How about a simple solution of regulating the sale of assault weapons or not rolling back regulations banning sale of weapons of mentally ill persons? Speaks volumes about a segment of our society, indeed.....Please explain precisely what you're talking about here. Or are you repeating what you heard?
What sort of hunting requires a semi-automatic rifle
The regulations and restrictions that you refer to are riddled with loopholes.
Being classified by a health professional as mentally ill is how you identify a mentally ill person, no? Cannot expect them to voluntarily carry a sign proclaiming mental illness.