Many Americans think of school shootings as mass casualty events involving an adolescent with an assault-style weapon. But a new study says that most recent school shootings orchestrated by teenagers do not fit that image â and they are often related to community violence.
The study, published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed 253 school shootings carried out by 262 adolescents in the US between 1990 and 2016.
It found that these adolescents were responsible for only a handful of mass casualty shootings, defined as those involving four or more gunshot fatalities. About half of the shootings analyzed â 119 â involved at least one death. Among the events, seven killed four or more people.
A majority of the shootings analyzed also involved handguns rather than assault rifles or shotguns, and they were often the result of âinterpersonal disputes,â according to the researchers from University of South Carolina and University of Florida.
Youâre missing the point, intentionally. The erosion of rights is the point; for the right wing, itâs the erosion of reproductive rights (and eventually the rights of women in general). For the people that believe theyâre on the left, itâs gun rights, and eventually all rights to the tools of violence.
Which is also worse tools for defending themselves. So, again, not a win.
Yes. Thatâs correct. Private citizens could quite legally have artillery under the interpretation of the constitution that existed until 1934, when the National Firearms Act made it through judicial review due to prosecutorial malfeasance. And yes, I think that most felons should be allowed to be armed, because the law is structured in such a way that even non-violent felons have their rights stripped from them.
Okay, so youâre saying that there is no amount of evidence that would ever change your mind. Is that correct? So even if I could show you that other countries that have high levels of personal firearm ownership donât see violence rates like the US does, you wouldnât see that as relevant, because it doesnât involve removing guns. Do I have that about right?
Itâs a promise gun owners make, that you give them a free pass on, despite them clearly never delivering on it, which is a common theme through all your arguments.
Starting immediately withâŠ
If guns made people safer, America should be the safest country in the world by a huge margin, not shrugging off mass shootings every month
So why is the crime rate in America practically identical to countries with gun control, except that Americaâs homicide rate is 400% higher?
Why do these âdefensive gun usesâ only appear when you ask gun owners how often theyâve experienced them and never in any kind of statistics?
To put it bluntly, Americas gun laws disproportionately help assholes be assholes â something that does show up in statistics.
But âresponsible gun ownersâ rush to be their useful idiots anyway, deliberately oblivious to who theyâre actually helping but demanding to be looked upon as heroes anyway.
Imagine you wanted to donate to the Democrats, but for $1 donated, it was mandatory to donate $4 to Republicans.
Would you rush to social media as Republicans won over and over again, insisting it wasnât your fault, you were only helping the Democrats?
Would you advocate people donated every dollar they could to the Dems and then shame them when their candidate lost?
If the Dems won 3 out of every 100 elections, would you claim it was because the laws around donations were the best in the world?
Donât worry, youâre not actually shocking me with that response, I just wanted you to say that idiocy out loud.
Itâs important that people know that supporting the pro-gun community is supporting elevating the far-right from mass shooters in to a homegrown Hamas.
âWell it doesnât matter what you think, because its been ruled constituationalâ.
You donât get to make that argument for guns and then handwave it away when you donât like it.
The evidence Iâve been waiting 25 years for? Sure, you could change my mind with it, but if you actually had it, you wouldnât be desperately latching on to semantics to try and make me sound unreasonable.
Sure, you can do the âb-b-but Switzerlandâ thing if you want to, but Iâll just point out what their actual laws are, so you probably shouldnât unless you support gun control measures like:
Some of them, youâve already openly opposed, such as prohibiting grenades and artillery.
Others, the pro-gun community actively opposes, such as safe storage and denying guns to domestic abusers.
But if you want to replace Americaâs gun laws with Switzerlandâs, Iâm happy to officially congratulate you on becoming a gun-control advocate.
Nope, but it gave you the premise you needed to push misinformation, which is all you were really interested in.
deleted by creator
Gun control predated Hitler lol
A better example would be the NRA supporting gun control to disarm the Black Panthers.
Which is not what I said, but okay.
How about, ALL of my trans friends, and the overwhelming majority of my gay friends are armed, because theyâve got people that will happily murder them in the streets with their base hands, and cops will not give a fuck?
How about the women I know that have had to get restraining orders against violent and abusive ex-husbands and boyfriends, and got armed and trained because cops do not give a fuck until his hands are around her neck?
How about the people threatened like my nephew that were threatened by a gang because he was a witness to a murder, and was compelled to testify in court? (He ended up having to move, because, again, cops did not give a fuck. And no, there was no âwitness protectionâ; it was either show up and testify, or be jailed on contempt and perjury.)
America has a violence problem, period. Itâs not a gun problem, itâs a violence problem. You want to make shit safe? Fix the conditions that cause the violence.
To rephrase that, why are you concerned only with affecting murder, rather than affecting ALL violent crime? If you reduce all violent crime by correcting underlying conditions, then murder decreases along with everything else. So, why the focus on a single issue?
⊠Why do people only drown at home when they have bathtubs, and not people that just have showers? Your question is nonsensical. Defensive gun use only shows up when you ask gun owners because non-gun owners donât have guns to use defensively. (And, BTW, since you are familiar with DGU, you know that conservative estimates are around 1.5M per year in the US.)
My local gun store has a cannon for sale. It can be yours for just $5000. I think itâs 4"âbut donât quote me on thatâand itâs a smoothbore, so you can absolutely use it for grapeshot if thatâs your desire. Of course, itâs going to take you about a minute and a half to load if youâve practiced, so maybe donât miss with that first shot? Oh, and youâre going to want a spotter to help you aim, and youâll need to find a way to tow it around, since it weight a couple thousand pounds.
âŠWith a cannon that takes a crew of four people to operate effectively, and has a range less than a decent bolt action rifle? 'Kay.
Gun control laws, sure. Since those are almost always intended to and disproportionately affect minority groups. Like Reagan passing gun control laws in California because the Black Panthers were policing the police. Or Georgia denying MLK Jr. a carry permit. Or D.C.'s gun ban. (Fun reading for you: This Nonviolent Stuffâll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, by Charles E. Cobb
(You missed Finland, which is likely more heavily armed than the Swiss.)
But, again, roughly similar rates of gun ownership.
Vastly lower rates of violent crime. Not even gun crime, violent crime.
Becauseâas you notes previouslyâmany guns used in crimes in the US were legally purchased. So thereâs no good reason to believe that a Swiss person couldnât easily jump through the hoops to get an SIG 550 (or use their military-issued rifle, and the military-issued ammunition) to commit a mass murder. But you simply donât see that. You donât see that in Finland either. You donât see much violent crime in either country, with or without guns. In the UK and Australia, you see a lot of violent crime.
Safe storage laws. Dear god. If the state subsidizes the cost of storage, sure, Iâm fine with that. But gun âsafesâ are a fuckinâ joke. Thereâs a lot to unpack, but thereâs no country Iâm aware of that requires firearms to be stored in a container that would be considered a burglary-resistant safe. RSC-1 is the standard for a gun âsafeâ under storage laws in the US (it actually exceeds most requirements), and the UL RSC-1 standard only requires that a container resist attack for 5 min with hammers not more than 2#, and a pry bar not longer than 12".
No one is arguing that people convicted of a domestic violence offense should be allowed to be armed. (Okay, Iâm sure some people are. No one that I know of is making that argument.) Convicted is the key term here. As it stands, an accusation is sufficient; if you have a restraining order, you may not own a firearm. Thatâs not the same thing as a conviction; you are not provided with an attorney, there is no investigation done by outside parties. The process has far, far looser rules than any criminal proceeding.
What evidence would you accept? I have already demonstrated that countries without any realistic path to gun ownership can still have very high violent crime rates, even if the murder rates are lower. Iâve also demonstrated that countries with high rates of individual gun ownershipâincluding military armsâdo not necessarily have high rates of violent crime (including murder). So itâs clear that the firearms by themselves do not cause the crime, but are only the tools used.
What youâre trying to do is âcureâ pneumonia with a cough suppressant, and hoping that the underlying pneumonia goes away on itâs own once you stop coughing. Thatâs dumb. Even if you took all the guns in the US, youâre not going to fix the violence, the gangs, the domestic abuse, the rape, or even the suicides.
And yeah, conservatives oppose fixing all that shit too. So, good on you for agreeing with Republicans on that, I guess?
Itâs literally the next argument you make.
But they donât use their bare hands, they use the guns you demand they are sold, significantly increasing the chances of your friends being killed.
Violent, abusive partners that you also demand are sold guns, despite domestic abuse being one of the strongest predictors of homicide.
What about him? 99% of guns used in crimes were either legally sold to the criminal, or sold to a âresponsible gun ownerâ that failed to secure the weapons and promptly had them stolen.
The laws youâre leaping to the defense of armed the murderer, the people who threatened him and from the sound of it, guns only made his life significantly worse.
Iâm not even sure how you think youâd solve this in your gun utopia. If your nephew was a child at the time, they wouldnât be eligible to carry a handgun with them at all times. If they did have a gun, your expectation seems to be that he could have murdered the criminal back, which would have only made the trauma, threats and court appearances even worse.
If you didnât make all these people up, itâs clear youâre just using them as props. Itâs genuinely surreal that you could have at least 7 people in your life that you ostensibly love, all of whom have been the target of violence, yet you support their abusers and oppressors buying handguns and semi-automatic rifles.
Nobody advocating gun control thinks it will end all forms of violence, nor do they oppose other forms of violence reduction.
They oppose supplying violent people the tools they use to maximise their violence, with near-zero consideration of the risk that poses to innocent people.
They ask themselves âHow many people would have died at Pulse nightclub if the killer only had a bolt-action? What about if he only had a knife? What about if we lost our minds and let the pro-gun community pick up a 6 pack of hand grenades like many of them openly support?â.
But the pro-gun community doesnât. They just say â49 killed and 53 wounded is fine. 61 dead and 400 injured is fine. 21 children mutilated beyond recognition is fine. 3 women a day is fineâ, because none of those people matter as much to them as their guns do.
Which violent crimes am I blocking reduction efforts for? I will support any moral and demonstably effective method of reducing violent crime of any sort. The current gun laws meet neither of those requirements.
Iâm focusing on a single issue because thatâs the issue weâre discussing, not because itâs the only one I support.
Because showers have a near zero drowning risk and bathtubs donât. Beaches and swimming pools have a higher drowning risk still, which is why we have systems in place to mitigate those dangers through lifeguards.
If you think this simple concept is ânonsensicalâ, weâve probably isolated why you think gun laws are perfect just the way they are â youâre completely unable to identify different risk levels, even when theyâre extremely obvious.
Which would have been a great point if Iâd suffered a traumatic brain injury and actually asked âwhy donât people without guns use their guns defensivelyâ.
Defensive gun use must inherently prevent a crime and the pro-gun community has been completely unable to demonstrate this crime reduction statistically.
Only 8% of firearm researchers agreed that 'In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime
Which is roughly the number of violent crimes reported in America each year. Youâd think if 50% of all violent crimes were prevented by guns, that would be trivial to prove.
Instead, we end up with figures that say things like âonly 3% of all mass shootings are ended by a good guy with a gunâ.
Congratulations, youâve accidentally realized that different weaponry comes with different risks to the public and that those risks are significantly reduced when weapons are less portable, lower range and have a lower rate of fire.
But of course, your little story about cannons doesnât actually represent your views on guns, otherwise youâd oppose handguns and semi-automatic weapons, aligning your opinions with the most widespread gun control laws across the globe.
You said âartilleryâ. Should we go through different forms of artillery and you can either say âYes, I support anyone who can pass a background check owning that with no training or safety requirementsâ or âactually it turns out Iâm not an arms absolutist after all and some weaponry isnât worth the social riskâ?
So now that those racist laws are gone, thereâs no more race problems right? All the Black Panthers are living happily ever after and definitely werenât executed by the state, guns or no guns.
Because it sure seems like your guns didnât fix shit for them.
Police still execute them in the street and if they had a gun on them, there isnât even an investigation. Hell, if they fired at the police, those police would probably get a medal for killing them.
But if you know the magic proceedure to follow to stop police brutality using cool guns, Iâm all ears. Youâre a black man, youâve been stopped by police, you have a legal firearm in your pants. When do you start blasting?
Be specific, because the lives of people you donât give a shit about are on the line.
Once youâve sorted that, you can explain how selling guns to neo-nazis with a history of domestic violence helps them.
Hereâs their gun laws.
What a surprise, they require gun licenses which wonât be granted for self-defense, guns that are not appropriate for their stated purpose or applicants with a history of mental health issues, violence or substance abuse.
All of that is gun control, which the pro-gun community opposes.
Fortunately, the people of Finland donât. So after a two school shootings using pistols, police were grilled about why the gun licenses were issued, then legislation was updated to require two years of active, documented hobby shooting before being issued a pistol license, as well as being over the age of 20.
Crazy. Itâs almost like those âhoopsâ filter out mass murderers.
Nah. You want to be a âresponsible gun ownerâ, so its time for you to take responsibility.
You shouldnât have any trouble finding countries that would revoke the gun license â if not criminally charge â anyone found keeping a handgun in a glovebox or sock drawer and an AR-15 in a closet.
Millions of Americans do, and it sounds like youâre among them. It sure seems like âresponsible gun ownersâ hate the thought of that responsibility being mandatory.
The pro-gun lobby are, and theyâre both funded by you and representing you.
Did you tell all those âwomen you knowâ at the top of your comment that you still support their ex-partners owning firearm, even though they have a restraining order? Did they ever speak to you again? Because I certainly wouldnât if someone told me âIâd rather risk your murder than risk temporarily depriving an innocent person of an inanimate objectâ.
Yes, you have demonstrated that countries with gun control have lower murder rates (which is exactly my point) despite still having other crime (which I never claimed gun control would eliminate).
Except for all the murders you just acknowledged were lower with gun control, because guns escalate arguments and crimes into homicides since thereâs no better tool for quickly and reliably killing someone.
I sure hope youâre not a doctor, because treating symptoms is exactly what they do until the underlying cause is discovered and addressed. If it canât be cured, managing symptoms is literally their entire focus.
Not in your hospital though. Turn up with a broken arm? âSorry, pain is just a symptom so we canât give you anything for it. We also donât think the bone sticking out of your arm is the actual cause, so weâre not going to address it until youâve had 6 months of chemotherapy and undergone a colectomy because cancer can cause pain too. Weâre not actually going to perform those proceedures, but if someone else does, come back and see us so we can give you new excusesâ.
No, it wont. It will reduce the lethality and frequency of every single one of those things instead â an improvement you oppose.
You seem to be confused again. Name every single moral, effective change you can think of to reduce violence and crime and Iâll openly support every one of them. Universal healthcare, addressing wealth inequality, improving education? No problem. You can even raise my taxes to help fund them.
Then when youâre all out of ideas, I will say âGun control is another moral, effective way to reduce the amount and severity of crime and violenceâ and youâll throw a fit about ânot that one, we will kill you if you try and implement that oneâ.
Your views on that one issue align perfectly with both Republicans and the gun-lobby that donates $16 million each year to them â money you give them.
Yeah, and you know the underlying cause, and are still advocating for treating only a symptom. A tool doesnât cause people to use the tool. An inanimate object can not force people to use it; it has no power to compel action . But you insist on treating it as though it does. You insist on treating symptoms as though they were causes, while ignoring the cause entirely.
Iâm tired of this. You want to take rights and insist that only the state has the power to use violence. Ultimately, you want to empower fascists rather than the people as a whole.
Iâm done, because thereâs literally no point at which youâre going to admit that a tool canât force itâs own use.
A tool canât force itâs own use. Iâm happy to admit it and have never claimed otherwise.
Bur youâre not arguing with me, youâre arguing with a gun control advocate that lives in your head and believes whatever the gun-lobby has told hoi they believe.