Mass Shootings

There Have Been 13 Mass School Shootings Since 1966, Not 27 This Year

Don't conflate mass shootings with school shootings.

|

For many people, the Uvalde, Texas, mass shooting—which claimed the lives of at least 19 children and two adults—seemed all the more horrible after they learned it was the 27th school shooting so far this year. That fact makes it harder to view Uvalde as any kind of isolated incident.

An NPR article highlighting this statistic has been shared frequently on social media. The headline, "27 school shootings have taken place so far this year," probably gave many readers the impression that gun-related killings in schools have been especially high this year, even before Uvalde. Naturally, the prospect of 26 other previously unnoticed mass shooting events in schools should provoke alarm. It should also raise eyebrows.

The problem here is that three very differently defined terms are being used somewhat incautiously and interchangeably: school shooting, mass shooting, and mass school shooting. Uvalde was a mass school shooting; the 26 previous tragedies at schools this year were not.

The difference is significant. Education Week, which tracks all school shootings, defines them as incidents in which a person other than the suspect suffers a bullet wound on school property. Many of the 26 previous shootings involved disputes between students in parking lots, or after athletic events, and all of them resulted in one or zero deaths. These deaths are still incredibly tragic, of course. But they are fundamentally unlike what happened in Uvalde.

Uvalde is a mass school shooting. This is defined in different ways too: an incident in which at least four people (some counters make it three) are shot and/or killed. The Gun Violence Archive counts incidents in which at least four people were shot. Under this definition, many incidents of street crime and domestic violence count as mass shootings, even if no deaths result. A stricter tally of mass school shootings, conducted by criminologists for Scientific American, only includes incidents where the shootings resulted in at least four deaths. Using their criteria, the number of mass school shootings in the U.S. since the year 1966 is 13. These crimes claimed the lives of 146 people in total.

Obviously, 13 incidents in the last 56 years is a very different statistic than 27 incidents in the last few months. The two figures are so far apart because they measure separate things. One-off gun incidents are a serious problem in the U.S., and those taking place at schools are no exception. Mass casualty events, on the other hand, constitute less than 1 percent of all gun deaths. Suicides and non–mass-casualty murders—usually carried out with handguns rather than assault rifles—constitute the overwhelming majority of gun crimes.

Given the sheer horror of the violence in Uvalde this week, it's understandable that the public is interested in ensuring that such a thing never happens again. But for the policy debate to be fruitful, people need to understand the actual contours of the problem.

NEXT: Why Is Biden Still Limiting Imports of South Korean Steel?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "incautiously and interchangeably"

    you misspelled "intentionally"

    1. ^ Absolutely.

    2. Same way deaths "with" COVID" are repeated as deaths "from" COVID.

      1. Gun violence figures usually include suicides. States that allow gun ownership inexplicably have more suicide by firearms.

        1. IIRC, suicide is the leading cause of "gun deaths." Let me look it up. Yup. 54% of the deaths are suicide, 43% murder, and the rest "other."

          That's how the CDC has weaseled itself into gun control. They consider suicide to be a matter of national health, which according to them gives them the power to treat guns as a national health threat.

          1. I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, (ras-32) I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
            .
            >>>>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

        2. "States that allow gun ownership"

          In other words, all of them?

          CB

          1. Probably should be "states with more gun ownership". Or "states with fewer hurdles to gun ownership".

        3. re: "States that allow gun ownership inexplicably have more suicide by firearms."

          Yes though that's hardly inexplicable. What the gun controllers might find inexplicable is that they do not have more total suicides. In other words, if someone really wants to kill him/herself, taking away their guns just means they find a different way to do it.

        4. Yeah, but not necessarily more suicides overall. Suicides are a very complex subject and people often plan them in advance. I've done several classes on this in my former employment and as a veteran advocate. It's a myth that they are spur of the moment, but there is often a crisis point people reach. They will work to get whatever method they choose. The only time denying them access to the method of their choice works is when they reach that crisis point. And noticing the signs is far more effective and intervening, reaching out, Question, Persuade and refer, than denying them access to guns. I suggest all parents and teachers seek resources to learn how to detect the signs and how to properly intervene. Don't beat around the bush, ask them directly, 'are you planning on committing suicide?' it's a myth that asking this question will persuade them or influence them to commit suicide. It's a tough question but easier than attending your son's funeral.

          1. And I said son, because statistically juvenile and young adult males are the most prone to suicide.

            1. Incorrect. Statistically, middle-aged white males and Native American males are most prone to suicide. On a related discussion former and current military males have higher rates than civilians, but the real difference seems to be females who have been in the military. They commit suicide at much higher rates than non-military females.

              1. Actually, according to your graph the highest rate was in 25-34 year olds, while suicides among middle ages has been declining.

        5. But many of the states that allow freer gun ownership, and have a higher percentage of gun owners, have lower murder rates, including gun murders.

          Suicide can be tragic, but that is a completely different issue.

        6. All states allow gun ownership! They cannot ban fireamrs, something about the 2nd Amendment comes to mind, supported by SCOTUS Decisions (District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago). Some just make it difficult to get a permit to carry!

        7. This is such a meaningless statistic by itself. Of course having more guns would mean more suicide by guns, but as others have pointed out the overall suicide rates do not seem to be any higher for these states. This is like the statistic I always hear that people who own pools have a higher risk of drowning. Of course that would make sense! These statistics are only touted to distract from the real issues.

        8. Which states do not allow gun ownership?

    3. I like the way the author is punctilious about terminology. Then he uses the silly term “assault rifles” to describe everyday guns made up to look like military weapons. Sigh…. A much more intelligent discussion about gun use and ownership could be had if folks would do a little research and investigation about guns.

    4. Isn’t one mass shooting enough? If you don’t believe we have a problem, look at the statistics.

      https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

      1. You do realize we have more drowning deaths annually than deaths from mass shootings. Perhaps we should close beaches, lakes, swimming pools & bathtubs to solve drowning deaths!

        1. it's pretty crazy how all these anti-gun politicians are so 'up in arms' about an assault weapons ban (even telling Ted Cruz 'f@ck you' on social media because he doesn't support one) or 'common sense' gun laws (which are far from common sense considering they wouldn't have had any effect whatsoever on the TX shooting) when mass shootings with AR-15s are such a statistically minuscule number of deaths yet they never want to look at everyday gang-related shootings like happen regularly in Chicago (www.heyjackass.com) that have killed over 200 people just in Chicago alone so far this year for example. Why can't these supposedly intelligent people see that passing another law when murder is already the most illegal thing you can do isn't going to do a damned thing to reduce gun violence? And banning say AR-15s, the most popular rifle in civilian use, would (if somehow you could actually eliminate them all from society) only affect 1% of gun murders since those guns are so rarely used? Use a little 'common sense' people. "Come on man!" - Joe Biden

          1. Anybody who wants Daddy Gov to disarm you wants to do you harm, and is pure evil.
            Anybody who wants to disarm you should be treated as an imminent threat to your life.

            1. Venus de Milo agrees.

            2. Wouldn't that include Putin and his Commie predecessors too, Dugin Hooligan?

      2. We do have a problem. But since fins haven’t become more available over the past few years, the problem is clearly not related to gun availability nor lack of gun control.

        What has changed over the last few years? Violent, racist, bigoted rhetoric from the American left, combined with a steadily failing educational system run by the left, systematic destruction of the economy by leftists, systematic destruction of the family by leftists, and encouragement oh homelessness, drug addiction, and deinstitutionalization by the left.

        1. Do you really believe this rhetoric only comes from the left?

      3. Isn’t one acid attack enough?

        Isn’t one suicide bombing enough?

      4. Yes captain obvious.

      5. Enough for what? Why do people always think that events like this should change the minds of anyone who takes a particular interest in gun rights? Anyone with a brain has considered that this sort of thing is possible and still come to the conclusions they do about the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

      6. That's a great question. 'Enough for what' is an even better one.

        Sure, I'd say one mass shooting is one too many. That's more than enough, wouldn't you agree?

        But if I said you could prevent that mass shooting by, say, giving up your house and your car for the next 20 years would you agree? Or selling your youngest child? Think of all the lives you'd save? Or throwing that child into the mouth of a volcano (human sacrifice is long-time favorite of those who think that something (like drought) is more than enough.

        The point is -- as it always enough -- enough for what? If I absolutely guaranteed you that if you took the entire GDP and sent it to a Nigerian Prince that there would be ZERO mass shootings next month, would you do it? How 'bout next year? How 'bout for the next 10 years?

        Typically we put this kind of question in speed limit context...but it's the same basic question: if I could definitively prove, beyond any doubt, that lowering the speed limit to 25 mph, nationwide, that such a lowering would save 25K lives a year, would you agree to that 25mph limit?

        Of course 99% of the population would vehemently disagree. The life calculus is inescapable. We ALL trade the convenience of a higher speed limit with the inevitability that 25K more people will die -- this year -- because of it.

        And the logic is the same with mass shootings, as cruel as it sounds.

        Sure one mass shooting is enough. It's one too many. But whether or not I'm willing to do whatever someone is expecting me to do to try to prevent that mass shooting depends entirely on the nature of the ask.

        1. Mike, among many others, is idiot enough to assume choices can be made without any compromises at all.
          Hint, Mike: Grow up.

      7. 42,915 people died from auto accidents last year.
        I'd say we have a car problem...wouldn't you?
        The number came from the NHTSA.
        You see, guns don't kill people. people kill people whether using a gun, a knife a vehicle or by other violence, it's still people killing people.
        We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem.

        1. We have a wrong-people-with-guns problem.

          1. We also have a wrong-people-with-cars problem. Have you seen the way people drive?

      8. Some of GVA's incidents are lawful self-defense but gun banners care about dead criminals.

    5. ^^^ EXACTLY RIGHT ^^^

      It is absolutely intended to shape and warp public opinion.

    6. Should’t smear NPR with that brush. They were very careful to explain their terminology.

    7. Most gun-bigots' claims about children killed not only include suicides, but also adults up to 25. Age 15-25 is a quite useful category in criminology, since it includes most of the population that is big enough to get in big trouble but not yet mentally developed enough to stay out of trouble, but most of them are not children.

      Drunk driving accidents count ones where only the sober driver was at fault, as well as ones where a sober driver was taking a drunk passenger home. (That trick goes all the way back to propaganda for the Prohibition amendment.) And if anyone's blood test shows marijuana metabolites from weeks before, it's also counted as caused by pot.

    1. He looked at a different set of shootings, those involving strangers -- not family, friends, neighbors, co-worked, co-students, etc. He didn't care how many were shot, especially ignoring tha 4 death minimum.

      What he found was that when the shooters were stopped by civilians, there were far fewer deaths, because the civilians were on the scene. When the shooters were stopped by police, there were far more deaths, because they had to arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously.

      I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere.

      The linked page is a much more extensive study, not just ten incidents.

      The way to stop these school shootings is simple:

      1. Get rid of gun-free zones, everywhere, but especially schools.

      2. Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn't matter.

      Nardz wants carry mandatory, which offends my sense of liberty, and ignores that a lot of people are not very good with guns. If you made it a requirement, you'd have a lot fewer teachers.

      But the principle remains the same: there is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools -- they are gun-free zones. Take that away, allow armed teachers, and mass school shootings will vanish within weeks or months as news reports show how suicidal and ineffective they have become.

      1. What he found was that when the shooters were stopped by civilians, there were far fewer deaths, because the civilians were on the scene. When the shooters were stopped by police, there were far more deaths, because they had to arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously.

        Columbine should have seen some for-real prosecutions around this.

      2. Thanks, I am going to keep this dataset in my back pocket for when people say concealed carry has never stopped a mass shooting. If the average number of deaths is 2.3 that means it never reaches the threshold to even *be* a mass shooting before it was ended.

        1. Yes, the hoplophobes and FBI are like the Baptists and the bootleggers. Hide the misinformation!

        2. It is worth noting that even without a gun, multiple adults can stop a single shooter. It just takes the will to do so. They cannot stop everything, especially when people start throwing shit at them and rushing from all angles.

          That is a lot easier to say rather than do, but it is still true.

          1. Indeed. If everyone attacks the shooter with whatever they've got, some will probably get shot, but it will be over fast. I'm sure that's not easy in the heat of the moment, but yeah. Cower under a desk is probably the worst thing to tell people to do in a situation like that.

        3. The first, original FBI report on active shooter incidents circa 2000 demonstrated similar. Civilians, armed or not, *at the scene* were roughly equally responsible for ending shootings as police and were *overwhelmingly* more likely to end them quicker and with fewer lost lives. The report was revised and the criteria for active shooters were changed* such that it represents more of what you see today, ~30% suicide, ~60% arrest, ~10% stopped by civilians at the scene.

          *e.g. If a shooter started shooting people, got attacked, and killed himself before the cops show up, it was considered as having been stopped by civilians but, later, was classified as ended by suicide.

      3. "Nardz wants carry mandatory, which offends my sense of liberty, and ignores that a lot of people are not very good with guns."

        You're confusing me with someone else. I definitely don't want the tranny who needs 5 year olds to constantly affirm their sexuality/being carrying at school (or anywhere).
        No, I fully endorse your suggestions.
        Further, teach kids to fucking fight back and bum rush the shooter if necessary.

        1. Sorry, musta been someone else.

          1. Found it -- NOYB2

            Sorry for the confusion.

        2. Why do we allow sick freaks to teach our children? Let them live their lives, but they are not entitled to be around children.

        3. I definitely don't want the tranny who needs 5 year olds to constantly affirm their sexuality/being carrying at school (or anywhere).

          But you want them to teach five year olds? What kind of pervert are you?

          Someone you can't trust with a gun shouldn't be teaching kids either.

      4. Nardz wants carry mandatory, which offends my sense of liberty, and ignores that a lot of people are not very good with guns.

        I (not Nardz) believe that schools should be privatized, and I also believe that such private schools can require their teachers to carry guns as condition of employment.

        How any of that "offends your sense of liberty" is hard to understand; do you not believe that schools should be private? Do you not believe that private employers can make carrying guns a requirement in the employment contract?

        Under a privatized school system, school operators would also end up being liable and held responsible for the safety of the children, whereas public school administrators just shrug or even view themselves as victims, rather than as responsible.

        If you made it a requirement, you'd have a lot fewer teachers.

        That is far from clear. Currently, we have a public school system dominated by political corruption, nepotism, toxic femininity, and seniority, not competence. Much of the funding in that school system is wasted. If you redirected all that funding into teacher salaries, salaries could be doubled or tripled, and if you eliminated the toxic social and political environment, you might attract more and better teachers as well.

      5. The concept that my ex brother in law, who is both a fourth grade teacher (just for the extra irony this week) and a former US Marine wouldn't do any good in an active shooter situation if he was armed is absurd. I mean, he'd probably charge in even if he wasn't armed, but he's clearly more help there if he is.

  2. 42 deaths annually occur from falling off the toilet or young children drowning in them. VENDING MACHINES: Each year vending machines topple over and crush 13 people. WATER HEATERS: With incorrect temperature settings kill an average of 100 people per year.

    1. Nobody needs assault vending machines.

      1. Water Heaters are that dangerous. You can bet your ass that my family is about to get comfy with cold water only.

    2. What about fire extinguishers? I understand they can be deadly in the wrong hands.

      1. So deadly that you can throw one at someone, and tomorrow a different person dies.

    3. We need to mandate toilet seatbelts !!

      1. Shut up they'll hear you. 😉

        1. South Park did that already.

      2. So, for the morning after rodizio?

  3. NPR
    National Propaganda Reporting

    NOT a reliable source for anything.

    1. Schweaty Balls?

    2. I figure since they already extort money from me, I might as well stay up to speed on how they're using it to peddle the establishment narrative. Nothing like getting robbed and seeing the funds spent on a massive PR campaign against you for having anything in the first place to steal.

    3. The state controlled media arm of the progressive unites states government.

    4. Not Particularly Reliable?

      1. Noxious, pathetic retards.

    5. When it comes to facts they're actually not bad. And I do like some shows like "Hidden Brain" or "This American Life."

      Their opinion pieces however are mostly shit. And by mostly I mean 99.9999%.

      1. I would agree that they are generally factually accurate. But what they choose not to report on says a lot. From time to time I will listen to NPR on my drive to work for a few days. Seems like very little of what I consider the most important topics of the day are being reported on at all.

        1. Please don't tell me you're getting on that bandwagon. This whole "What you don't say means more than what you do say" thing is getting really tiresome.

          1. How about what my local NPR station does report, which is dominantly about oppressed people issues and Powerful Women who care?

            1. That's what I call opinion, not news.

              1. But much of it is presented as news.

              2. That's your opinion.

                NPR injects opinion into news, so the news has a deep blue color.

          2. Whether it is deliberately planned or not, people who rely only on mainstream news for their information on current events are missing an awful lot.

  4. The four death minimum is bullshit. There was an elementary school shooting in 1979 - two dead and nine injured. It was even the source of a song - I Don't Like Mondays. This is clearly a mass school shooting

    1. See my link above -- he found that mass shootings stopped by civilians averaged 2 deaths per mass shootings. One begins to suspect there's a reason both hoplophobes and the police only care about 4 deaths.

      1. Well in this case, a cop stopped it. But I suspect they don't want this sort of shooting to count because it was a sniper shooting at a school (by a 16 year old girl)

        1. "Well in this case, a cop stopped it."

          You're a lying pile of shit. The cop killed the shooter after the shooter killed all he could.
          Eat shit and die, asshole.

          1. I believe you must be thinking of a different incident. The one jfree is talking about, she killed 2 people, but surrendered, was convicted, and is still alive. Brenda Spencer. Inspiration for the Boomtown Rats song mentioned above.

        2. Race and voting record are the only relevant issues in this or any other case.

          1. Your forgot gender and scalp bumps.

      2. And yet an armed security guard didn't stop this guy. He was able to lock himself into a room with a bunch of victims for a long time and pick them off while the cops sat outside and debated what to do.

        So, in the case of Uvalde Elementary, an armed guard on the scene wasn't effective which would run counter to the study you cite.

        Also... if by "civilians" you mean armed teachers, you'd need to show that more guns in schools would be less harmful than no guns in schools.

        1. Israel has successfully stopped school shootings. They use a mixture of security measures, training for teachers and students, and voluntarily armed teachers. Israel has had only two shooter attempts since the 1974 Ma’alot Massacre where 22 children where killed. In both of those later incidents, teachers took out the shooters.

          Israel’s Ministry of Education funds school security, which ranges from shelters and fences to armed and trained guards at every gate. In addition, not all teachers need to be armed, rather the notion that some may be armed coupled with the lack of knowledge of exactly who is armed, stops shooters.

        2. "...Also... if by "civilians" you mean armed teachers, you'd need to show that more guns in schools would be less harmful than no guns in schools."

          No, doooood, you'd have to show the opposite. Simple assertions from lefty shits =/= argument or evidence.

        3. What "harm" exactly do you think would result from teachers carrying guns?

          1. They might shoot the kids? -Shawn-doooood

            1. Sometimes the kid needed to be shot...

              1. Hey teachers! Leave them kids alone!

    2. It is true that liberals/progressives inflate numbers in statistics they quote, to make problems sound even worse than they actually are. But, as you point out here, these folks seems to be manipulating definitions to deflate numbers and make a problem sound like it’s not as bad as it actually is.

      1. Mike, I think it's more a question of accepted definitions. If the FBI defines a mass shooter event as "3 dead not including the perp" (don't quote me on that as I'm not 100% sure what their definition actually is, but for the sake of argument...) then running a news story that doesn't use that particular bar is dishonest, unless you start the story by defining your terms. 27 mass school shootings is not accurate. 27 school shootings might be accurate but the same problem applies. If someone drives their car into a school parking lot at 11pm on a Saturday and commits suicide with their pistol, is it a school shooting? One frequently cited study about school shootings included that example on their list.

        The left uses the latter example to inflate their statistic. The gun owning right uses the FBI definition. You can argue about the definition but it is a commonly used term that is enshrined into law enforcement records. Who is being more dishonest?

    3. What I really want to see are statistics for the number of times a shooter has shot at randomly-selected victims, excluding any case where there is a known motivation such as gang affiliation, sports rivalry, etc.

      1. That will be hard to find since motivations can overlap, and the people compiling the numbers usually have an agenda.

        1. Like gun confiscation.

        2. And when the perp gets popped, how you gonna find out?

    4. If you are talking about shootings and not mass murders, then I think that's fair. It's still going to be a far smaller number than people who want to count every time someone gets shot on school property will say it is.

      1. Several of which occurred when kids weren't even in school, or on property owned by a school district but not attached to the school itself. Generally, gang turf wars.

        1. I saw some list of what counts as "school shootings" a few years ago. I think one was a school resource officer who negligently shot himself in the leg. Many were after hours or at schools that weren't even in session, or were disuse.

          1. And some just occurred within a certain distance from the school, I believe it was half a mile. Saw the same list, I think it was here on Reason I saw it.

            1. I'm remembering that someone living across the street from the school shooting out her window at cars in the street was counted as a "school shooting."

              But the problem isn't kids being shot en masse or one at a time over years, it's kids being killed and badly injured by any means. A killing isn't any better if the killer beat the victim to death, knifed him, strangled him, or threw him off the roof. Nor is it really any better if the kid was run over on his way to school. I'm coming to believe that those that talk about "gun violence" don't care about the violence, but only the guns - probably because they don't want armed victims opposing them when they get violent.

    5. There was an acoustic version of that song included on the ‘Secret Policeman’s Other Ball’ album.

    6. The FBI has a better metric called "active shooter incidents". That metric includes shootings that don't end in any arbitrary number of deaths but it does require an intent to kill multiple people.
      It also excludes gang violence, drug-related violence, domestic violence, bystanders caught in a crossfire with police, etc. The definition is more complicated than I can accurately summarize here but it does a much better job counting the events like this.

      1. That definition covers the "mass shootings" that people actually fear more than the much larger death toll from things like a mugger waiting in the alley with a tire iron. But it sounds too complicated and subjective to ever be honestly and accurately applied.

    7. The entire article is pinned on the idea that the stats for school shootings are wrong because the real number is successful kills. Mass shooters don't get points for merely wounding 10 year olds, apparently.

      Everyone can feel better about mass shootings at schools. Once we define them down to non-existent, they aren't a problem any more! "Oh, sorry ma'am. The shooter killed 19 kids, which is a prime number, and if he'd killed a prime number on a Tuesday, we'd accept it but since he killed them on a Monday, it doesn't count. Unless... was he an Amazon Prime member? They get a discount and we count them Monday through Friday."

      1. Um no. The article is simply pointing out that some media are misrepresenting the facts. The cases referenced above have nothing to do with 10 year olds getting wounded and no mass killer is involved. They are gang bangers and or people with some grudge that results in gunfire which may or may not result in injury or death. The targets are not random school kids. Maybe try reading the article next time before sharing your fictitious version.

      2. We can largely end the problem, but it will be about a ten year cycle. Only two things have to happen.

        1. Stop drugging and young boys
        2. Remove all leftists from education (thus ending emasculation of young boys)

        Within a decade, the cancer the left has caused in our schools will be excised. Problem solved.

        1. Are we doing step 2 with meat hooks and towchains? I think that'll really help.

          1. I personally domt see an issue with that, but probably not. Dissolving the Department of Education would be a good start. And generally just running leftists out of education.

          2. "Are we doing step 2 with meat hooks and towchains?" I had a flashback to the John Carpenter vampire movie, but leftists generally don't burst into flame when dragged into the sunlight.

            1. I'm not so sure, at this point.

      3. "The entire article is pinned on the idea that the stats for school shootings are wrong because the real number is successful kills..."

        IOWs "the facts", shawn doooood? What a shame for lefty shits like you.

      4. Why would you willingly demonstrate your idiocy this publicly? Ah, right. Habit.

  5. "But for the policy debate to be fruitful, people need to understand the actual contours of the problem."

    Since when has "understanding" ever been a criteria for politicians or the media when it doesn't support their agenda? On ANY issue?

    1. This.

      People don't want understanding or debate. They want a top man to make decisions. Skeptical? Just look at some political advertising. Any kind, anywhere. From dog catchers to senators, never have I ever seen someone advertise a candidate as "wise" or "reasonable". They tout themselves as "strong" and "reliable".

  6. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10857101/Texas-school-shooting-cops-restrained-parents-trying-save-kids.html

    Texas officials launch investigation into Uvalde police response to school shooting: Conflicting statements over gunfight with the shooter and videos show parents being held down by cops outside while kids were trapped with the gunman

    Had any parents gone and armed themselves the police would have killed them.

    Cops have two jobs. Make people obey, and go home safe. Protecting, serving, and enforcing the law are not on the list.

  7. All of you should be worried about MONKEY POX!

    1. Let the monkeys solve their own problems.
      At least they don't go around whining about masks.

    2. Does is stop you from spanking the monkey?

      Asking for a friend.

      1. Monkey, monkey, monkey. Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey ?

  8. “But for the policy debate to be fruitful, people need to understand the actual contours of the problem.”

    On the other hand, for the policy debate to be successful in avoiding a Democrat slaughter at the polls in November, Exaggeration and distortion is perfectly acceptable.

    1. Where is the disinformation board when you need it?

      1. They'd be all over spreading this disinformation.

      2. Brainstorming disinformation to spread

      3. Re-integrated into the DNC.

    2. "for the policy debate to be successful in avoiding a Democrat slaughter at the polls in November, Exaggeration and distortion is perfectly acceptable."

      You say this, but I don't think the Democrats realize what they are doing here. The majority of americans don't believe this shooting was caused by the expiration of the Brady Ban. On the other hand, the majority of Americans *are* deeply concerned that crime is going out of control, and liberal policies are a contributor.

      I think these propaganda outlets like NPR will find that they are convincing most americans not about the scourge of guns, and instead about the scourge of Democrat policies.

  9. Will the massive amount of blatantly incorrect "disinformation" pieces (propaganda) by the left be labeled as such, or is disinformation OK so long as it serves the cause?

    I think we know the answer

  10. Looking at the big picture of recent American history, we had stretch of almost 25 years from the early 90s to about the mid teens where a generation of mostly good leaders, spearheaded by New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, reduced crime (violent and non-violent) by well more than half and made many of our big cities actual liveable places once again for the first time in many years. Over the last several years, and especially the last couple of years, we've started backsliding rapidly, and the massive improvement in the urban quality of life that took place is disappearing once again. Why?

    Quite simply, bad leadership. Generally speaking, good leadership tends to yield good results, and bad leadership tends to yield bad results. The fish really does rot from the head. And right at this moment, America is unfortunately saddled with the absolute worst leadership we've had in decades. So obviously, things are going to get worse for a good while longer before they can (hopefully) turn back around again at some point.

    1. tl;dr
      Strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.

      1. And currently, all those weak men (and women, including semi human creatures claiming to be women) are leftist.

  11. The left conflate everything with everything.

    1. Virulent racist, though talented singer, Lauren Hill wrote a song about it

    2. The right does a great deal of the same, just on different issues.

      1. Yes, but the occurrence is only about 1% of the left’s conflation. Face it Mikey, you’re on the side of evil.

  12. it's understandable that the public is interested in ensuring that such a thing never happens again.

    This describes literally no one pushing for a ban. As Biden and Obama showed their only interest is using the opportunity to attack Republicans. That's why they don't care whether their proposals will have any impact, and why it doesn't matter whether they know what they're talking about.

    1. And it's not possible. You can't ensure that no one will ever kill a bunch of people ever again. Even with a total police state and ban on guns, crazy, evil people will find a way.

      1. and? What's your point Zeb? You can say that about all kinds of problems for which there are laws written to minimize them.

        1. Making policy based on extremely rare events is stupid. If there's a good argument for gun control, you should be able to make it stick without a pile of dead kids to stand on.

          1. Sorry to inconvenience you Zeb but there is a pile of dead kids and they're not the 1st or last. Most Americans - and humans - are not OK with that and that goes to one part of needed gun laws - outlaw AR-15 type assault rifles - but not all.

            1. Because you think there are lots of school mass murders accomplished with AR15s?

              Check the stats

            2. Just like outlawing alcohol?

            3. Sorry to inconvenience you Joe, but the Virginia Tech shooter killed 33 college age people with a hand gun - no AR15 required.

              Logically, I'm sure you'll pursue those with your gun ban plans if your fantasy of banning the AR15 were to ever come to pass and still it won't not have the desired impact. You'll continue this little misguided charade until only the police and military have guns, and then there will still be mass killings and you'll still be unhappy because the world is a dangerous place. No amount of hand wringing and laws is going to change that.

              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun - is a good guy with a gun, and the sooner the better...

              1. And the school murder with the highest body count is still the Bath, Michigan school bombing in the 1920's. The killer only used a gun to commit suicide. I suspect that if this total is ever exceeded, it will either be another bombing, poisoning the cafeteria food, or driving an SUV up on the sidewalk where the kids are lining up for the buses.

            4. Joe who is going to protect me from you?

            5. You killed those kids. Through your anti male education policies and the drugging of healthy boys. Guns were just the tools used. This is all your fault.

      2. Some might say that the crazy evil people will use the police state to kill a bunch of people.

    2. As we saw today when Schumer killed a vote on a bipartisan measure that would codify in law and already existing clearinghouse for best practices to respond to mass shooting incidents.

      1. The "measure" was a face saving nothing bill so GOP senators could pretend they did something. Schumer will allow it on the floor AFTER they vote on the more substantive bill now before them.

        1. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
          Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
          Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
          Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.

        2. 2A is the LAW. Not a suggestion.

  13. I realized the difference between the left and those more right of center, by which I mean small government types of all labels. The former believe the government can solve problems, so the next law will surely end whatever tragedy that is the current zeitgeist. The latter realizes that no law will stop evil and believe that protection is the duty of the individual. This is why compromise is nearly impossible. We have such different mindsets. If you believe the government can and will protect you, of course you favor laws that give the government the power to end tragedies (because you don't realize how futile an effort this is). If you believe the government can't protect you in every situation you realize that no law will ever end tragedies, and look extremely skeptically at any law that infringes on your right to protect yourself. In my opinion the latter are far more realistic about the world than the former.

    1. Convincing people who believe laws can end tragedies is akin to challenging someone's religious faith.

      1. No it isn't. You have no idea WTF you are talking about but of course promoting your supposed moral superiority the real subject.

        1. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
          Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
          Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
          Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.

        2. It isn’t that any of us are so much morally ‘superior’. The issue is that you and your kind are amoral, sociopathic shitweasels. You have no morality at all.

    2. Another perspective: traditional conservatives see religion as the context and platform for morality, and traditional liberals (and libertarians) pushed back on the insinuation of religion into government. New age liberals see government as the context and platform for morality, and pursue that as a new religion.

      1. Government is their religion.

        1. I didn't really want to get into that aspect, but it does have a lot to do with it. See Joe stalking me.

          1. It's called being in a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you soldier, no doubt a rare event in MAGA land here. Apparently you prefer pontificating

            1. PS If you agree with sarcasmic, let's see you defend that nonsense.

              1. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
                Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
                Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
                Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
                Eat shit and die, asshole.

              2. Government is you religion. You can’t imagine anything not controlled by your fellow travelers.

      2. Government is where morality is enforced from both sides. Cut the shit.

      3. No, you really don’t understand. Both conservatives and progressives believe that morality ought to be the basis of government, that’s why both are United in ultimately wanting to create totalitarian government; the two only differ in the details of their moral preferences.

        Libertarians recognize that morality is not and has never been the basis of government; natural rights and peaceful coexistence are.

        1. Exactly. Cheating on your spouse is immoral, but not illegal. Cheating at golf is immoral, but not illegal. etc...

    3. So, you're arguing for anarchy?

      1. No, didn't say that at all. But the fact is you can't legislate morality. You can't end tragedy. It's a futile strategy. More laws won't help.

        1. Of course you can and the right engages in it as much or more than the left.

          1. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
            Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
            Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
            Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
            Fuck off and die, asshole.

        2. Laws are societal rules. All they do is codify modes of behavior and punishments for abrogating those codes, based upon concepts of morality. I don't understand how your argument is different from the argument of an anarchist.

          1. Not my problem. Some laws are necessary, but more laws don't equal less tragedy, especially when they take rights and freedoms away from 99.9% of the population, to punish 0.1% of the population.

            1. What is not your problem? If some laws are necessary, then reasonable citizens will engage in discourse about which are necessary. I can't understand your position here.

              1. Because you aren't trying to hard, obviously. More gun control is useless.

                1. Yup. The US has a hate problem. The left has contributed greatly. Guns are really not the issue.

            2. soldier, perhaps you could consider the fact that the only relevant thing that differentiates us from the rest of the developed world, which does not come close to our gun deaths - mass shootings, suicides, and criminal activity - is how many guns we have here. This is not difficult. Mental health problems, crime, video games, whatever you want to throw up there, and were not that far apart. Those gun deaths? Hello!!

              So, your contention that we can't do anything about and "laws don't equal less tragedy" is clearly false if the laws cut down on the availability of guns. This is not difficult. As for the 2A, it's moot. None of us are in a militia as defined in the Constitution as being organized and trained by Congress, never have been, and never will be. Neither were our fathers grandfathers, etc. I'm sure you're aware that Washington hated them and that probably had a lot to do with the idea dying.

              "Clauses 15 and 16. The Militia
              Clause 15
              Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

              Clause 16
              Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

              1. Its a right of the people. You’ve lost this argument in court long ago, it is understandable you are very angry. But you will not disarm the people. And there’s nothing you can do about it.

                1. Let's be really clear here. Even if Joe Asshole gets the law he wants, it's really not going to result in fewer deaths. Probably significantly more.

              2. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

                Ҥ246. Militia: composition and classes
                (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
                (b) The classes of the militia are—
                (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
                (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.“

                Bit gender discriminatory, but works. Also, an unorganized militia. Maaaaan you little twat must be having a bad day 😀

              3. And the 2nd Amendment (best law ever) really does protect a right of the PEOPLE. Little fascist boy Joe Friedbrain having a rough time on the internet today huh? Ahahahahahaha maaaan youre making my overseas vacation a little sweeter you pathetic little stinker 😀

              4. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
                Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
                Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
                Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
                Eat shit and die.

    4. You're deeply confused or a cynical propagandist.

      Of course laws have effects, good or bad, and your viewpoint is protected by a law and the government which enforces it. It's the 2A. Where do you think that is enshrined and what power enforces it? It's in the constitution of the federal government.

      Now that we've dispatched the bullshit and your pretense to being above making other people do what you advocate though laws, care to suggest an actual solution? Or are you content with your presumed moral authority, which is right now busy defending the circumstances which enabled this deeply confused and fucked up 18 year old massacre 4th graders?

      1. Once again Joe shows his complete lack of understanding. The 2A, in fact the whole Constitution, is not a law against the people, it's restrictions on the government.

        1. Also, we had shootings in states that already have the laws proposed and they didn't do shit. Many European countries already have even stricter laws, and they still have school shootings. The only one confused is Joe, as per usual. And he is the only one that spreads his bias propaganda and demands everyone obey it.

          1. Yes, and people in Japan wear cowboy hats, a similar comparison.

            Stick to the issue soldier and if you're any good at it you won't have to personally insult me.

          2. Joe is once again yapping for attention. Rather creepy that he keeps stalking me, after I've told him I muted him. Several times. I did unmute him to read what inane comment he made. And I wish I hadn't. It was exactly what I thought it would be. Not well thought out, and the need to insult and imply he is the only one who understands any issue that is discussed, despite his many mistakes he makes. Kind of narcissistic of him. He's almost as bad as KAR, with this stalking thing.

            1. soldfier if you don't like having to defend your positions, maybe you should stay on the porch. This isn't your blog.

              1. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
                Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
                Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
                Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
                Stuff it up your ass, shitpile.

              2. We’re getting tired of your shit. You lie all the time and shitpost constantly. No one here obese you anything.

                Now that I’ve straightened you out, feel free to thank everyone for their generosity towards you.

            2. There's only one time I've been tempted to peek that actually turned out to be worth it so I just don't anymore. And that one was only because the comment was so stupid that it set a new record. Not because the comment itself was truly worth reading.

        2. The 2A restricts state and local governments from protecting their citizens as many would if the archaic and now moot "right" was not enforced by the Feds. Of course he will say the opposite on the mechanics of abortion where he opposes a right for women to decide their own morality and control their own body and destiny.

          1. The 1st amendment is also archaic and moot, yes? Little fascist boy Joe having another rough day on the internet.

          2. Joe the Second Amendment prevents the government from controlling arms held by the people. The historical context is from the Revolutionary War when the British tried to end the movement by the colonies to be free of control by King George. If the British could take their guns then the people could not fight back. Put another way if the people had their guns, it would be dangerous for British troops to try to subjugate the population. The Second Amendment is written to prevent the government - British or American - from being able to control the population with a military force. I repeat my question, if we give up our arms, who protects me from you? You think that you represent the forces of good. I disagree. If I am armed, you don't get to shove your version of "good" down my throat and maybe kill me in the process. If you mostly leave me alone, we can coexist. If you try to change the rules - make no mistake, you are trying to change the rules - don't expect me to sit quietly. The more you talk the less inclined I am to accept your version of good government.

        3. No, the Constitution is not a restriction on government, it is a grant of limited enumerated powers to the federal government; the federal government has no other than those enumerated powers.

          Furthermore, originally, the Constitution only applied to the federal government; states were perfectly free to limit source, establish religion, etc. Interpreting the Bill of Rights as restrictions on state governments is a 20th Century construct created by SCOTUS out of thin air.

          1. So are you arguing that granting limited enumerated powers is not the same as restricting power?

            1. Yes, they are literally two different acts resulting in two very different outcomes.

              The US Constitution starts with the premise that the powers rest with the people and that the people delegate limited enumerated powers to the federal government, but that there is an infinity of unenumerated rights retained by the people. Out of that infinity of unenumerated rights, the Bill of Rights enumerates a dozen rights as particularly important.

              That is in contrast to all other constitutions, which start with the premise of an omnipotent government whose powers are constrained by enumerated rights that the people have. Under other constitutions, the people only have a limited, enumerated list of rights.

              (That's the theory. In practice, of course, since the 20th century, the US has been rapidly degrading into a European-style totalitarian shithole with limited enumerated rights.)

    5. If you ignore all the things we do agree on, then your point sounds reasonable. The issue is, we agree on a lot more than we disagree on and that is the actual problem. How do politicians differentiate themselves with both the Republicans and the Democrats agree that there should be limits on "bearing arms?" WHAT?! you say? Republicans don't believe in limits on bearing arms? Just go try and buy a grenade or a fully automatic machine gun or poisonous gas, etc. Or look at how the NRA bans guns at their events. Both parties agree on the vast bulk of government spending or it simply wouldn't happen with Congress so evenly split. On fossil fuels, Biden opens more public lands to oil leases which sounds counter to the conservative talking points. Stop listening to what the propagandists say and look at what they do.

      1. The NRA banned guns only if the purview or locality required it. It isn't official policy. The leftist media blew that one out of proportion and misrepresented what happened. As to Biden wanting oil leases that's a blatant lie. He opens leases but puts so many strings attached that he knows no one could actually develop them. As for hand grenades, automatic weapons, don't be surprised how many people disagree with you on that point, but they don't say anything because they know how it will be represented. No, we really don't agree on a lot.

      2. The bull shit key shawn is how many legislatures, governor's offices and courts allow open carry.

        1. PS As to your larger point, you are correct that Americans agree on more things now than they have historically and the animus is a function of 24/7 cable opinion, talk radio, the decline of actual power for the parties, and more power for celebrity candidates.

          Not that long ago a lot of Americans believed in segregation, including no blacks in restaurants, hotels, etc an dthat was actual law. Virtually no one believes in that now and even in "fly over country", black Oprah and Dave Chapelle are very popular and Obama won mid west states. Gay marriage and gay family members went from outlawed and scandal to wide acceptance among the vast majority of Americans in a matter of a decade. We almost all agree Iraq was a collosal screw up, Russia should get the fuck out the Ukraine, Social Security and Medicare are not controversial and accepted positive social policy, divorce is no longer a stigma no matter your politics, and almost no one would admit to opposing equal rights and pay for women.

          None of these things were agreed on 50 years ago, and of course before that we had slavery. On the basic rights of Americans there is little disagreement and the hostility is ginned up by the 24/7 screamers who are selling advertising and books, as if 1-2 hours a day on air is just not enough of their toxic thoughts.

          1. Joe Friday: "Not that long ago a lot of Americans believed in segregation..."

            Define "a lot."

            If you mean "a majority," then that hasn't been true even in the memory of 90%+ of Americans.

            1. Macy, I lived in segregated America and I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of white southerners and no doubt significant numbers of northern whites thought was right. I'd call that a lot.

            2. I doubt the majority of Americans ever believed in segregation. Segregation was progressive policy, mostly embraced by Democrats and imposed on the country similar to how fugitive slave laws and “transgender rights” were.

          2. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
            Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
            Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
            Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
            Eat shit and die, asshole.

            1. I'm starting to think Sevo is actually soldier.

              1. Nope. You are not starting to “think”, Lol but sorry, you really dont xD

              2. One more lie from Joe Asshole.

    6. Collectivists vs individualists. THAT is the primary dividing line in American society. Almost all leftists are collectivists, most conservatives are individualists. Religions are individualist - one has a personal relationship with god and is judged on his/her own actions. Government, as Hildog famously said, is about the things we do together, i.e. collectively. Hence government begets government. Government should really be about protecting the rights of the INDIVIDUAL as it was laid out in both the Declaration and Constitution.

      Happy Memorial Day.

      1. Why would one need religion to have a personal relationship with God? Perhaps you mean all religion that is not "organized" religion? And how can Government, if it is by definition collectivist (your claim) be the guaranteer of individualism?

        Happy Memorial Day.

  14. I'll make it even easier for you, Robby. Statistically, if we look at the past twelve thousand years, school shootings in the territory now defined as the USA have been incredibly rare. "Mass" school shootings, as arbitrarily defined, have been even more rare. Now that we understand the "actual contours" of the so-called problem, we can see that we need do nothing.

    1. No, no, no.

      There is a problem! We have to do something! Do something!

      Whatever Chuck Schumer proposes is something, therefore we must do whatever Chuck Schumer wants.

    2. Security should include having only ONE entrance open at each school during school hours, and that entry should be closely monitored/protected, perhaps with a double door system so someone has to 'buzz you in' to get into the school, and if you aren't buzzed in you are isolated between the two doors until the cops come.

      The cannabis stores have such a system. Aren't kids more valuable than marijuana?

    1. Joe Asshole offers tweets!
      Eat shit and die, asshole.

  15. Only 13 mass shootings at schools! Peanuts! Why is everyone getting so upset? So some kids have to die every year, what’s the big deal?

    1. Kids wouldn’t have to die if teachers did their jobs and protected those kids.

    2. Kids die every year from all sorts of things, moron. Would you also see water banned?

  16. As so often happens, this topic points out how woefully unequipped most people are to think critically. They accept things based on whether or not they think they are supposed to agree with them. They don't ask questions about the data, their use of terms and definition of those terms. They fall for classical flaws in logic such as accepting correlation as proof of causation. We have a very dumbed down citizenry. Dumbed down and increasingly immoral. These are two root problems that if corrected would take care of so much of today's mess.

    1. " this topic points out how woefully unequipped most people are to think critically"

      Our teaching institutions, with some exceptions, do not teach critical thinking. They teach rote learning. Enabling students with critical thinking skills enables them to teach themselves throughout life, which should be the primary purpose of education.

      1. Do you think if some TV network (FOX??) had a series on critical thinking showing many of these fallacies, that people would watch it?

        I recall the "National Driving Test" that was aired in the late 60's that was quite popular and helped people understand better how they should drive safely and legally.

  17. A big chunk of my Facebook feed read their good lefty talking points and are out there pointing out how easy it will be to completely end school shootings. None of them offer a single solution, so I just let them revel in their own ignorance.

    The fact that all of the "common sense" solutions offered since the Obama administration never address the event they are claiming to prevent shows how genuine the assholes in charge are. More background checks will have no impact when all of these shooters pass the background check. Banning a not particularly powerful rifle won't have an impact. Red flag laws, while violating due process, never seem to have any impact.

    1. It would be easy to end school shootings: require teachers to be trained and armed, and hold them accountable for protecting the children in their care.

  18. This is what the anti-gun crowd does - conflate issues and present false evidence to try to support their weak claims. They claim a school shooting is something that happens near a school at 12:30AM is a school shooting! They are anti-freedom and anti-American!

  19. This will be very comforting to the parents of dead children in Uvalde. It must feel good to know their children didn't die in vain, it took this incident to reveal the truth of how rare and unique their kids deaths were. Heroic reporting here, Pulitzer material.

    1. Reason writers' usual cynical dismissal of any and all concerns about anything and everything.

    2. The dead children's parents surely appreciate your attempt to stand on their graves to advance your evil cancer.

  20. FIFY, Robby Soave: For the policy debate to be fruitful, people need to understand that American conservatives' worship at the altar of Gun Almighty is the problem.

    1. I'll bet Ukrainians wish they had worshiped at that altar a bit more.

      1. BigT: U.S.-trained Ukrainians are doing just fine against the fucking Russians. However, Ukrainians don't slaughter their own schoolchildren. A rabid minority of gun-obsessed Americans and soulless NRA-supported Republican politicians are super okay with the continuing mass murder of our children.

  21. Well, I know I feel much better knowing that.

  22. What I have been taught sinve I was old enough to understand is that violence comes from the inner city.

    It is the inner city that must be pacified and subjugated at all costs.

    I knew this for over thirty years.

  23. Biden says: "I Did That!"

  24. Again: people who want Daddy Gov to disarm you, which includes several posters here, mean to do you harm and should be treated as an imminent threat to your life.

    1. Nardz: You and so many other delusional right-wing worshippers of Gun Almighty continue to be the ongoing threat to our children's lives. High-velocity AR-15 rounds disfigured some of those fourth-graders to the point that DNA from their parents was needed to ID them. But you don't give a fuck, do you? Big scary Daddy Gov gonna kick down your door and take away your fucking toys. Stay vigilant patriot!

      1. It's completely obvious from looking at the data more gun control is going to do nothing to prevent school shootings. So, the question is why people like you keep obsessing about it, and the reason is obvious: you don't give a f*ck about children or anything, you just want to score political points. You're a self-righteous, callous prick.

        If you look at what actually causes young men to go on shooting rampages, it's pretty clear: broken families, drug addiction in the family, untreated mental illness, a broken education system, broken communities, lack of authority figures, demonization of masculinity, and dire economic prospects due to globalization and mass migration. Progressives are responsible for all these disasters, and in order to distract from their guilt, they call for "gun control" and throw temper tantrums, just like you did.

        1. NOYB2:
          "broken families, drug addiction in the family, untreated mental illness, a broken education system, broken communities, lack of authority figures, demonization of masculinity, and dire economic prospects due to globalization and mass migration"

          You are repeating the usual litany of gun worshippers' talking points. Irrational right-wingers terrified that the evil federal government might take away their instruments of death is the problem. Seventy-two percent of NRA members support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms.

          1. I just made another donation the NRA And the GOA (gun owners of america). Highly recommend.

            Also youre pulling numbers out of your ass and nobody cares about your whining. More guns than people, and there is nothing you can do about it. Seethe. Cope.

            Disarming the 99.99999% of responsible gun owners will not save lives. You are the kind of person who wants to ban all cars just so we have no car accidents anymore.

            Many more people die from drunk driving every year than from gun violence, but you little fascist boys never croak about that.

            The utility of a society that has cars and guns outweights the accidents and attacks. Using cars to kill people is especially trending in Europe, almost as if murderous criminals will find a way around the law?!

            AR15 are rarely used for murder too.

          2. You are repeating the usual litany of gun worshippers' talking points.

            I'm also repeating the usual litany of intelligent people who have looked at the data and who are qualified to make such determinations. I also have no reason to be biased, not owning guns, not having kids, and being a political independent (former long term Democrat).

            Irrational right-wingers

            I'm afraid the problem here is the vast number of irrational left wingers like you, people who fail to recognize even the most basic, obvious facts. People whose policies over the past decade and a half have been dominated by denial of basic biology, sociology, statistics, and economics, and who are destroying our society and killing American children. That is you.

      2. Eat a bullet, Stolid Citizen.
        You are literally cancer, a malicious totalitarian enemy of the people.
        You are a threat to liberty and life itself.

        1. I don't trust him to successfully complete the job with a firearm. But I bet even he could manage to get blackout drunk and pass out on the train tracks.

  25. “America Is a Gun"

    England is a cup of tea.
    France, a wheel of ripened brie.
    Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
    America is a gun.

    Brazil is football on the sand.
    Argentina, Maradona's hand.
    Germany, an oompah band.
    America is a gun.

    Holland is a wooden shoe.
    Hungary, a goulash stew.
    Australia, a kangaroo.
    America is a gun.

    Japan is a thermal spring.
    Scotland is a highland fling.
    Oh, better to be anything
    than America as a gun.

    ― Brian Bilston

    1. You're an ignorant American leftists quoting an ignorant, bigoted European snob; the days in which Europe was at the forefront of global intellectual life are long, long over.

      And the sad fact is that if we actually look at root causes for violence and mass murder in the US, we find the beliefs of people like you and him.

      1. Bow down before your deity, Gun Almighty.

        1. Bow down before your deity, Gun Almighty.

          I don't own guns and don't ever intend to.

          I did however grow up in the kind of shithole country that people like you want to turn the US into, which is why I oppose your irrational, destructive ideology.

          I will never bow down before your almighty left wing ideology.

      2. It's interesting how some immediately infer the political affiliation of other anonymous online commenters who happen to say things they find uncomfortable. For instance, how do you know that I am not a decades-long member of the Libertarian Party and traditional (non-crazy) Reagan Republican? Republicans supported common-sense gun control in the past. It was a nonissue.

        1. It's interesting how some immediately infer the political affiliation of other anonymous online commenters who happen to say things they find uncomfortable.

          Banning guns is a staple policy of the left (socialists, communists, fascists, progressives), just like abortion and categorizing people by race.

          For instance, how do you know that I am not a decades-long member of the Libertarian Party

          You may well be; the LP is not a libertarian organization, and many ignorant leftists are drawn to it.

          and traditional (non-crazy) Reagan Republican?

          Ah, you mean the progressive, neocon uniparty? Again, you might well be. That's not incompatible with being an ignorant leftist.

        2. No, lefty shit, it's interesting that lefty piles of shit (you) attempt to deny the fact.
          Eat shit and die.

    2. Stolid Citizen is a fucking lefty ignoramus.
      Eat shit and die.

    3. Your taste in poetry sucks.

  26. The government KNEW that this youth had CRIMINAL RECORD WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.
    One can NOT blame gun rights for the lack of diligence that was expect from the government. The real issue is that there NEEDS to be responsibility with the possibility of CRIMINAL and CIVIL RECOURSE against any government agent who fails in their duty to assure a criminal with mental illness can not obtain weapons legally.
    Part of the problem is "Sovereign Immunity" and part of the problem is Supreme Court Rulings that POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT.

  27. So you're telling me there's been 26 other opportunities this year for some woebegone dumbfuck person who shouldn't have had a gun, much less at a school, to gun down a bunch of other students, parents and teachers in addition to the first one he/she shot.

    Cool. Thanks.

    How about Buffalo? Where are your articles qualifying that?
    I need it because it makes us all feel so much better about the 300mm guns laying around in this country.

    Unreasonable.

    1. You'd be amazed at all the opportunities for death you encounter every single minute of every single day.

      Just think about it: if some mentally ill person wants to kill you, they just need to wiggle their steering wheel by an inch on the highway. In fact, a large percentage of fatal car accidents are probably just that: murder suicides. Reflect on that for a while.

      Yes, your views are unreasonable.

    2. No, we're telling you there are a zillion other opportunities for woebegone dumbfucks to gun down anyone always. Nothing has really changed....not in that possibility, anyway.

      And actually the estimate is that there are about 400M guns, here in the U.S....about 120.5 per every 100 individuals. That hasn't changed all that much either.

      In 1972 about 43% of all households owned firearms; 50 years later that percentage stands at about 42%. And, in any given year, about 99.995% of those weapons are NOT used to commit any kind of crime.

      Something has changed, though, and it's not the presence of guns in the American landscape, but the way those guns are being used and by whom. And even though our murder rate is only the 59th worst such rate in the world (our per capita homicides are dwarfed by what we see in South Africa, Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, etc.) still we must ask: why and how are more than half of our 22,000 annual murders committed by about 4% of our population?

      Even if we had a magic wand and could somehow eliminate all mass/school shootings -- ALL of them -- that would still leave us with 22K (non-mass-school killings) every single year.

      The question is why? And how have we as a society created an army of amoral, blood-thirsty undead for whom cold-blooded murder is just another solution to an ordinary problem? The answer to that question is not 'guns'.

  28. Gosh, if only we had a Federal Office of Misinformation to solve these kinds of misinformation problems!

    But wait...we do! (Our will very shortly) Unfortunately OUR Federal Office of Misinformation (headquartered, evidently, in every single Federal Dept of Anything) seems to specialize in CREATING these problems...amplified, of course, by all the Progressive Media Megaphones who shout it, narrative in hand.

    The purpose, of course of this endless "passionate intensity" heard nightly on the news, is not to inform but to indoctrinate, direct, and manage.

    Yes, there is a massive difference between School Shootings, Mass School Shootings, and Mass Shootings. Equally we could note there's actually very little difference between the 'common murder' of 1-2 or 3 people and the more uncommon murder of 4 or more people. Dead is dead; murder, murder.

    And if we're clarifying, we can also note that about 67% of all 'school shooting' incidents occur OUTSIDE the school buildings and 43% are performed by students who are guaranteed access to those same buildings...meaning spending billions of dollars to harden our 120K K-12 public schools against the 'stranger danger' represented by the homicidal sociopath in a hoodie actually does very little. (But by gosh we'll feel like we're doing something!)

    As for the 400M guns currently out-there...99.995% of them are NOT used / never used to commit crimes. (But guns clearly are the problem...or so we're told)

    And while we're at it we should note that even if we had a magic wand and could 'abracadabra' eliminate all mass shootings and all school shootings and all mass school shootings, that would still leave 22K bodies to tally under the annual murder heading. The horrific murder of innocents amounts to only about 1/2 of 1% of our national murderous total.

    Left unsaid in these discussions is the much more difficult question: where do these monsters come from?

    How have we -- as a society & culture -- created, in 18 short years, those who have come to believe that the destruction of innocent children is somehow a 'solution' to their own problems of hatred, alienation, and amoral indifference to life itself? How could such perversion become fundamental belief?

    A generation or two back, these things did not happen. Now they do, with a kind of clockwork regularity: monsters among us, dragging bodies in their wake.

    But like grizzly bears and mountain lions wandering willy-nilly through suburban malls, the solution is not to hire grizzly guards and put up grizzly-barriers....the solution is to figure out and fix where the hell the grizzlies are coming from.

    So let us ask that. And let us recognize that at least half of those 22K killings, every single year, are being performed by 4% of the population. Let us look, clear-eyed, into the mirror and examine the possibility that just perhaps.... the transformation of our world into a place where truth is relative, morality a function only of consensual pleasure.... a place in which men can become women, and women men by simply clicking their heels together...in which God is dead, and all males are labeled toxic, and drag-queens perform for 4th Grade Reading Hour (as endorsed by Billy's Two Daddies).... let us look at all that and ask: could there possibly be another, better way?

    1. How have we -- as a society & culture -- created, in 18 short years, those who have come to believe that the destruction of innocent children is somehow a 'solution' to their own problems of hatred, alienation, and amoral indifference to life itself? How could such perversion become fundamental belief?

      White supremacists and mass murderers pretty much all come out of the public school system, and usually out of fatherless families supported by the welfare state.

      A generation or two back, these things did not happen. Now they do, with a kind of clockwork regularity: monsters among us, dragging bodies in their wake.

      Sorry, that's not true. These things have always happened. The demographics and circumstances have changed somewhat, but kids today are actually safer than they were a few generations ago.

  29. Gun violence is gun violence is gun violence.

    If you want to split hairs, so you can whittle away at the argument that we have a problem, and therefore do nothing about gun violence, then can all the conservatives shut their mouths about Chicago gun violence? Because ya know semantics.

    1. Facts are facts are facts, and lefty shits sticking their fingers in their ears remain lefty shits.
      Eat shit and die.

    2. I mean, honestly, I don't actually care about violence in Chicago because I don't live there.

      Of course, I also don't distinguish "gun violence" because I'm not a moron who thinks it matters to the corpses.

  30. Let's say for the sake of argument that there were 27 mass school shootings this year. Would that change your views on the issue at all? No? This is why I find the article disingenuous.

    1. Exaggeration and misrepresentation of facts by the left isn’t used to change the minds of opponents, it’s used to radicalize its own base and justify violence. That’s why it is important to debunk such false statements.

      1. What if these views weren't exaggerated? What if there were actually 27 mass school shootings this year? Would that change your view on the subject? I didn't think so. The article and your comment is an exercise in misdirection.

        1. No, your comment is an exercise in misdirection. YOU argue in favor of useless, unconstitutional policies. YOU engage in morbid fantasies and exaggerate deaths hundredfold. And YOU try to use your morbid fantasies to demonize people who want government to implement rational, effective, constitutional solutions.

          The fact is simple: these kids were killed because a government-run school failed to secure school grounds adequately and because a government-run police force failed to protect the kids. Period.

          1. "YOU argue in favor of useless, unconstitutional policies."

            You misunderstand. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm criticizing the author and your comment for being disingenuous.
            Let's say for the sake of argument that there were 27 mass school shootings this year. Would that change your view on the issue? How about 50 mass school shootings this year? Still no change, but too chicken shit to admit it. You really don't care how many mass school shootings there are, do you?

            1. You misunderstand. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm criticizing the author and your comment for being disingenuous.

              Bullshit. You are constructing outrageous claims ("what if mass school shootings were a hundred times more common") in order to manipulate and inflame the discussion.

              Let's say for the sake of argument that there were 27 mass school shootings this year. Would that change your view on the issue?

              I look at data and draw conclusions from it. Given the data we have right now, gun control is not an effective means of reducing mass shootings.

              I can't answer the question of what my conclusions would be if school shootings were hypothetically 100x more common than they are, since I have no data on what would be causing those massive numbers of school shootings.

              In other words, your question doesn't make any sense. But you're not interested in rational debate or facts or data, you're interested in manipulating people emotionally.

              1. "Bullshit. You are constructing outrageous claims "

                There's no claim. You are such a chicken shit coward. If you are representative of the gun lobby, they are in trouble. If the number of mass school shootings this year is unimportant and irrelevant to you, have the balls to say so.

                "I can't answer the question of what my conclusions would be if school shootings were hypothetically 100x more common than they are"

                Of course you can. You're just too much of a chicken shit coward to do so.

                "In other words, your question doesn't make any sense. "

                You'd rather pretend you're an idiot than answer a simple question. Surely at least some gun advocates have the courage of their convictions you clearly lack.

                1. You're a fucking lying pile of lefty shit.

                2. If the number of mass school shootings this year is unimportant and irrelevant to you, have the balls to say so.

                  The number of mass school shootings this year is very important to me, which is why I object to you pulling numbers out of your ass in order to manipulate people.

                  If you are representative of the gun lobby, they are in trouble.

                  I'm not a representative of any lobby at all. As I indicated, I don't even own a gun or know how to shoot one.

                  Of course you can. You're just too much of a chicken shit coward to do so.

                  No, I can't, because gun control isn't an ideological issue to me; it's an ideological issue to you, which is why this question matters to you.

                  Based on the data we have, increased gun control will not reduce mass shootings. No amount of insults, temper tantrums, or self-righteous indignation by people like you alters that conclusion.

                  1. "The number of mass school shootings this year is very important to me"

                    Come on. I know your game. It's the same one played by the author of the piece. No matter what the number is, your position wouldn't change. But you're too chicken shit to admit it.

                    1. I have two positions. (1) If you want to restrict guns, you need to amend the US Constitution. That's indeed a legal fact independent of any statistics on gun violence. (2) There is no evidence that additional gun control would reduce mass shootings or gun violence.

                      Those are straightforward facts about the world we live in right now.

                      I have no idea what kind of fantasy world you inhabit, but your fantasies aren't relevant to the real world. You are just "too chicken shit" to admit it. You are "too chicken shit" to admit that you fabricate statistics to manipulate people emotionally.

                    2. "If you want to restrict guns, you need to amend the US Constitution."

                      Not true. Children can't buy a gun legally. Others can't buy machine guns, or artillery pieces legally. Mental cases, criminals, illegal immigrants, junkies etc can't buy them legally.

                      " There is no evidence that additional gun control would reduce mass shootings or gun violence."

                      What kind of evidence are you looking for? These mass school shootings are rare events and any statistical analysis based on them is going to be dodgy. Are you looking for evidence that doesn't exist?

                      As you said, "The number of mass school shootings this year is very important to me," giving us a classic case of what V I Lenin called useful idiocy. You may well believe that the number of mass school shootings is very important, and glom onto an article quibbling over the number rather than confront the tragedy of the killings. If that's the case, you're being played for a stooge, no matter how sincere your beliefs. The point of the exercise is misdirection: instead of facing the tragedy, Reason prefers to quibble over numbers. Similarly, when a ban on assault rifles makes the news, Reason quibbles over the definition of assault rifle, as if we could all only agree with Reason's definition, all our problems would disappear. You may not have sussed this out yet, and unwittingly played the role of the stooge or useful idiot. But you know now, and I've done all I can. Good day, sir.

                    3. "Come on. I know your game. It's the same one played by the author of the piece. No matter what the number is, your position wouldn't change. But you're too chicken shit to admit it."

                      We all know YOUR game, lying pile of lefty shit; you lie, you misdirect, you attempt sophistry, and so forth.
                      You are a mendacious asshole, please eat shit and die.
                      ---------------------
                      "...Good day, sir..."

                      Stuff it up your ass, you passive-aggressive pile of shit.

                    4. Not true. Children can't buy a gun legally. Mental cases, criminals, illegal immigrants, junkies etc can't buy them legally.

                      Yes, and you can restrict gun ownership for those groups because their constitutional rights are limited. You're welcome to pass additional restrictions on these groups if you like.

                      What kind of evidence are you looking for? These mass school shootings are rare events and any statistical analysis based on them is going to be dodgy. Are you looking for evidence that doesn't exist?

                      So you admit that there is no evidence, no rational justification for further gun control.

                      You may not have sussed this out yet, and unwittingly played the role of the stooge or useful idiot.

                      YOU are the stooge/useful idiot. YOU want to limit the ability of Americans to defend themselves against violence. YOU oppose making our schools safer.

                      rather than confront the tragedy of the killings

                      I do confront the tragedy of the killings: assholes like you are responsible for these tragedies.

    2. Let's say, for the sake of argument that trueman is a lying pile of lefty shit.

      1. Because it's true.

  31. But you have to give credit to Texas from protecting children before they are born.

    Not so much after they are actually in the world. Check where they stand on maternal mortality, infant mortality and other related issues. All such rankings are in the middle. Well at least they're not near the bottom like most southern states.

    Reminds me of a comment I once heard. Texans are evidence that native Americans mated with buffalo 🙂

    1. See, that's simple to explain. It's the state's job to ensure that people aren't murdered. It's not the state's job to ensure that people (or their children) live a healthy lifestyle.

  32. Senators bankrolled by the NRA:
    Mitt Romney: $13,648,000
    Richard Burr: $6,987,000
    Roy Blunt: $4,556,000
    Thom Tillis: $4,421,000
    Marco Rubio: $3,303,000
    Joni Ernst: $3,125,000
    Josh Hawley: $1,392,000
    Mitch McConnell: $1,267,000
    Ted Cruz: $176,000

    Each of them is absolutely fine with the terrorization of generations of American schoolchildren.

    1. You want to know who is "absolutely fine with the terrorization of generations of American schoolchildren"? Look at the NEA and the AFT, because they are responsible for the inadequate security at schools, for the failure of teachers to protect their students, and, first and foremost, churning out one mass shooter shooter and white supremacists after another. Or where did you think those people come from other than government schools? The NEA and AFT don't give a f*ck about students; they care about money and power only.

    2. "Each of them is absolutely fine with the terrorization of generations of American schoolchildren.

      Lying pile of lefty shit fine with dragging strawmen around.
      Eat shit and die.

    3. What rubbish!

  33. Actually, there are mass shootings in Chicago all the time. In fact it is quite dangerous to walk down the street and not be concerned about being hit by a stray bullet.
    The violence in cities like Chicago is so out of control, yet the liberals look the other way and say nothing. Only to blame "white supremacists".
    One only needs to g o to this website: https://cwbchicago.com/
    To see just how bad it is. yet BLM and the rest of the liberals remain silent.

  34. Not one firearm in history has EVER caused someone to become violent. Therefore, the notion that confiscating guns from lawful Americans, i.e. "Guns Kill!," will reduce violence is logically equivalent to saying that spoons make people fat. There is a correlation between a killing by a gun and the act of violence, but no causation, and so the notion that eliminating the gun will reduce the violence is nonsensical.

    But it is worse. Up to a million people per year are NOT victims of crimes because they were legally armed. You can argue about whose numbers you believe, by you cannot be taken seriously if you say it doesn't happen frequently. If you remove the guns from decent citizens, you will see more crimes - because the criminals will have assurance that their victims will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves. Women and the elderly will be disproportionately victimized.

    We have to stop accepting the false premise that these are "well meaning people." Some may indeed be "useful idiots," but everyone in history who dreamed of being a totalitarian instinctively knows you must first persuade people to voluntarily give up more and more of their rights, a little at a time, until they no longer have a choice in the matter. Bullies do not want their victims to be armed, and they don't want them able to fight back.

    1. "...You can argue about whose numbers you believe, by you cannot be taken seriously if you say it doesn't happen frequently. If you remove the guns from decent citizens, you will see more crimes - because the criminals will have assurance that their victims will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves..."

      "Gun Free Zones" = target-rich, risk-free environments for murderers.

    2. " because the criminals will have assurance that their victims will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves. Women and the elderly will be disproportionately victimized."

      The victims of the school shooting in Texas were disproportionately children. It seems you are OK with kids being shot to death but draw the line at women and elderly. You really should try to think for yourself than mindlessly parroting someone's talking points.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.