I also have a question: why the hell would anyone watch your YouTube video or answer your question when you swing into the thread and won't do the same for anyone else?

To save you the trouble, this is an extremely liberal forum , so the response you're going to get will be similar to mine: if getting schoolteachers to carry guns is legit the best America can do in response to the shooting epidemic, it might be better to explore ideas on how you could be encouraged to shoot each other more quickly.

epidemic? do you have any citations to point me to this epidemic? thanks

how many questions do you want me to answer? I came into this thread wanting to know what you libs thought of the idea and I didn't feel like reading 43 pages of info. sorry, i'm just not going to do that. and since this is a very liberal thread, i assumed nobody had posted said video yet.

I just watched the video, which predictably contained a series of talking points which could have been summarized in like 3 bullet points. Which is why videos are super rarely posted here, because essentially you're asking everyone else to spend 5 minutes watching it instead of spending 5 minutes yourself summarizing it.

Because I've watched the ******ed video and am wise to this "hoho what epidemic? There is none!" talking point, the epidemic to which I refer is this:

That is, the problem is largely outside schools.

I'm going to do my best to summon a serious response to the video: the problem to be solved with shooting in America is not a logistical one, where you have to work out how to bring down shooters as fast as possible. It's a cultural one, where you have to work out why this happens in America and not in other countries. And in large part that's due to the fetishization of the use of force, something which is exacerbated by the idea of teachers carrying guns. The fact that there are large numbers of Americans who don't instantly recoil from the idea of teachers having guns is a symptom of your cultural sickness.

I agree with you, there is a cultural problem causing these attacks, but solving that may take decades to fix, if it's even possible at all. But in the mean time, dont you think teachers should be allowed to carry a firearm if they want to?

Also, where did you get the info on the rise of school shootings from?

Preki, have you seen any of the news stories lately, about teachers getting arrested for leaving their loaded guns in public bathrooms where homeless people pick them up and fire them, or where they injure themselves accidentally firing them, or where little kids come up and play with their guns and accidentally fire them, or where...and on and on and on?

Teachers carrying firearms in schools is a horrible, horrible idea that has been eviscerated on this forum and elsewhere numerous times. But you aren't aware of that. Because you can't or won't read.

And yet you claim that you are not here spamming or trolling, when you won't read answers that have already been given to questions that you just keep asking.

Has any conservative (or anti-gun control advocate from any ideology) ever answered:

Why does this (mass shootings) happen so often (almost every day) in America and so rarely in other countries?

I mean, it's completely obvious, it's guns. And the answer is stricter gun control. Everything else is nonsense or a side issue.


Some basic facts, many of them completely obvious, that conservatives and gun advocates either ignore or are not aware of:

In America, there have been over 1,600 mass shootings in the past 5 years, almost one every day, with mass shooting deaths every year.

The median number of mass shooting deaths in other countries is zero.

America has less than 5% of the world's population but over 30% of the world's mass shooters and almost 50% of the world's civilian-owned guns.

More guns = more gun deaths.

America has similar overall crime levels to other countries, but massively, massively more gun deaths.

Gun homicide rates are 25 times higher in America than in other high-income nations.

States with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun deaths.

States with more guns = more police officers killed.

Stronger gun control measures are overall popular, some of them wildly popular (90% support) with both conservatives and liberals, and yet conservative politicans won't listen to the people, not even to their own people, they listen to the NRA.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/ameri...ics/index.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts

You're missing the point. Your own video tries to make the case that school shootings are not any kind of huge emergency, numerically speaking. If so, why propose a solution which helps the minor problem (logistics) and exacerbates the major problem (culture)?

Wikipedia. Google the quote. It's about mass (public) shootings though, not school shootings which are a subset.

Re patrons post, gun availability doesnt help, but the problem is more complicated than that. Mass shootings are themselves just a specific manifestation of a wider problem with shootings and with violence in general.

The fact that preki's video simultaneously argues that school shootings aren't a big deal in the scheme of things AND that it would be good for more teachers to have guns suggests that the author does not see any fundamental problem with schoolteachers carrying guns. That problem is cultural, not logistical. Individual capacity for violence is a good thing as far as idiots like Stossel are concerned.

Chris, do you think that if America had the same culture, but Japan's gun laws, that the numbers would look the same?

In America, when the government banned assault weapons, mass shootings went down. When the ban expired and conservatives wouldn't extend or re-implement it, mass shootings went up.

This isn't hard.

I'm not saying that culture doesn't play into it, but gun laws and gun availability are the primary factors.

It's a logistical problem with an underlying cultural problem preventing us from solving the logistical problem.

I've used this example before but in the 60s and 70s there were thousands of bombings in the US, mostly bombings to property. They were so common one time a bomb went off in a movie theater in NYC and the patrons wouldn't leave until the movie was over. Then after the Weatherman explosion happened people realized all these loose explosives could be used in a systematic way to kill scores of people.

But there wasn't any underlying culture of bomb rights. People didn't believe you needed dynamite to fend off the government or defend your home so governments passed laws restricting the sale of explosives and their regents, strongly regulated the storage of explosives for industrial uses so they couldn't be stolen and the result was the number of bombings trailed off.

Good example of legal restrictions working. And I agree that there is a cultural problem. But that is not what is preventing us from solving the logistical problem. At least, not for most of the reforms being pushed currently. Maybe for full repeal of 2A or something like that. Polling shows widespread support for stricter gun measures currently, even among conservatives and gun owners. Up to 90% for some of the measures, but conservative politicians won't even pass those. The problem is politicians bought by the NRA.

The political will has been there in the past, even with the same American culture. We outlawed fully automatic machine guns. Boom, no more mass shootings from fully automatic machine guns, and relatively few gun deaths from them. We outlawed assault weapons previously, for 10 years, and boom, decreased mass shootings. Then it expired, and boom, increased mass shootings.

Culture is a problem, but it isn't THE problem. Legislation and gun availability, and horrible politicians who won't listen to their own people and fix those issues, are the problem.

I like Bill Haywood's 6 bullet limit rule with no detachable magazines at all. You have to load one bullet at a time. It doesn't seriously impede hunting, self-defense or target shooting. It's easy to define and I think hard to work around. And if you only have 6 bullets, firing fast is not going to kill more people.

Loading one bullet at a time doesn't seriously impede self defense? Am I missing the sarcasm due to not posting here regularly these days, or is this serious.

I don’t think he meant the gun could only have 1 bullet, I was picturing a revolver where it holds 6 bullets max but once you have to reload you need to put the bullets in one at a time instead of having a preloaded clip.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b03a8f3a22e85e

Even among general public 50% are against the NRA...The idea that if you look only at gun owners, that number would go up, seems pretty unlikely, wouldn't you say?

Also this:

I was one of the many gun owners who joined the NRA after the Parkland shooting. Definitely don't think it's a perfect organization, has its flaws, but joined for the year anyways.

WTF? Why?

No, absolutely not. Are you insane?

Eh, not really.

I mean, yes, in the sense that the other problems make solving the gun availability problem very difficult but no in the sense that if you could just magically remove the guns most of the problem would be solved.

Yeah this.

Eh, it's both. Most of the support for those measures is lukewarm support and people don't really care that much.

If people cared enough to make it a real voting issue then that would overcome the NRA donation factor.

All the responses I really want to make regarding you and your gun would probably get me banhammered so I'm just going to say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States

"There is no fixed definition of a mass shooting in the United States.[7] When the definition is restricted to four or more people killed, data shows 146 mass shootings between 1967 and 2017, with an average of eight people dead including the perpetrator.[8]"

How does Wikipedia say there have been 146 mass shootings since 1967 and you have 1,600 in the past five years?


Since you asked for the anti-gun control perspective - we genuinely do not care about "gun deaths", if anything we'd look at overall murders. And there is no correlation at all between gun ownership rates and homicide rate. None.

Though to be clear, even if there was a causal effect, I'd still want to own a gun.

https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/every...e-1108ed400be5


No correlation between gun control laws and homicide rates:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.983a1f0db05c

It's (legitimately) fascinating that to me the reason why someone would join the NRA after Parkland is crystal clear, but seemingly unfathomable to you. Guess we all (my self included) live in our bubbles still.

Reason for joining is the same reason anyone joins the NRA - to give them financial support and membership numbers support so they can continue to try and defend what I and other members view as civil liberties, which are and continue to be under attack since Parkland.

Guys, gun control doesn't work, otherwise homicide rates in the US would be substantially higher than they​ are in any comparable Western nation. If we arm all the students, there wouldn't be any more mass shootings DUCY.

tsao,

thats the dumbest ****ing thing i've heard all month

Tsao,

I have very easy responses to the incorrect things you've written, which I will get to. But since you replied to my post and yet ignored the first and most basic question, can you please answer:

Why do mass shootings and mass shooting deaths happen so much more often in America and so rarely in other countries?

US homicide rates have always been higher than other "comparable Western nations". Compared to say the UK or Australia, even before they enacted strong gun control, the US soared above them in homicides. And the US has seen the same level of decrease in homicides as they have, as they enacted gun control and the US loosened gun laws.