MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

March for Our Lives Kids Don't Know Just How Safe Schools Are

Students say your right to own a gun conflicts with their right to feel secure.

The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, have reenergized the national movement to restrict gun ownership following a mass shooting that claimed 17 lives. Their efforts culminated with the massive March for Our Lives Rally on Saturday in Washington, D.C.

The students from Stoneman Douglas have earned praise for demanding that Congress take decisive action. But they also seem to be stoking irrational fear about gun violence in schools.

You would have come away from the March for Our Lives Rally thinking there's a school shooting epidemic in America. But what happened at Stoneman Douglas was extremely rare. American schools are profoundly safe, and most likely getting safer: According to researchers at Northeastern University, shooting incidents involving students have actually decreased in recent years, and in the 1990s the overall crime rate was much higher than it is today. The rate of homicides from firearms in the U.S. has plummeted. In fact, students are orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash on their way to school than they are to be gunned down on school grounds.

Yet the protesters were demanding more security in schools—a lot more—even if it means making armed guards a fixture of the lives of children.

Some kids live in constant fear of being shot in their classrooms. This hysteria is leading to claims that we must relinquish our rights in the name of safety—a familiar story, from the drug war to the war on terror.

Teenagers have every right to fight for a cause they believe in, and the students from Stoneman Douglas are justifiably enraged about an event that claimed the lives of so many friends and classmates. But feelings shouldn't trump facts, and we should never craft policies from a place of fear.

Music: Clean Soul by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Attribution 3.0 International License.

Interviews by Robby Soave. Produced by Mark McDaniel and Alexis Garcia. Camera by Mark McDaniel and Todd Krainin. Edited by Austin Bragg.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

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.

  • timbo||

    March for lives kids are a sad, laughable herd of brainwashed future useful idiots.

    That pretty much goes for all protestors because they have no idea they are being used for politics and nothing more.

    Why would you be against having armed staff or armed officers on campus? A deterrent is the best thing in any dangerous situation.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That pretty much goes for all protestors

    Tea-baggers too.

  • timbo||

    What's a tea bagger?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A pissed off old racist that wants the government out of his Medicare.

  • timbo||

    The tea partiers originally were people who understood the perils of massive government intervention in markets and opposed bailouts by Bush.

    They carried over into the Obama years because Obma was barely different than Bush on massive government intrusion and bailouts. Of course Obama care was naturally abhorrent as history quickly proved in it's utter and complete failure.

    Don't come on this site and try to discuss facts with people who are smarter than you.

    Christ you two are fucking stupid.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The first named TP protest was in Feb 2009 right after Obama signed a tax cut - there was NO PROTEST until the black guy was POTUS.

    You are ill informed and stupid. That is no way to go through life.

  • timbo||

    Wrong again dumbass.
    There were multiple tea party rallies all over the country before Bush was out of office . They were mostly in objection to bailouts and cronyism.

    You just don't know. Give up on life. You will never amount to anything more than a complaining bitch.

    That is why everyone likes to laugh at you and Tony. Dumb people always get a chuckle because you are so easy to rile.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Produce a news link from 2008 or before about a "Tea Party protest" of Bush's TARP program and other stimulus packages of him then.

    You won't find one.

    Big spending is just fine if you're a GOPer. Same is true today. Where are those racist motherfuckers now with this biggest spending budget of all time?

    Oh The Dotard is white. Big spending is okay.

  • Libertymike||

    This race realist was protesting government spending long before TARP.

    True, I was never a Tea Party dupe and dupes for the GOP they were and what's left of them continue to be.

    Shriek, you know damn well that through the years there have been some of us here who have protested government spending whether there was a bi-racial bigot or an orange one occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    LM, oh protests existed for sure.

    They were just not named "Tea Party" until Rick Santelli did in Feb 2009. Fox News never mentioned the term until Santelli began it with his rant.

    A few weeks after Rick Santelli's tea party rant on CNBC, Fox News soon recognized a major conservative phenomenon in the making and moved to become cheerleader-in-chief. Fox began to cover the first major tea party rallies six weeks in advance, starting with a March 5, 2009 appear­ance by Newt Gingrich to talk up the protests on Greta Van Susteren's show. Scarcely a trickle of Tea Party events occurred over ensuing weeks, but that did not prevent Fox News hosts and guests from speculating wildly about the likely huge size and impact of the forthcoming rallies. Viewers watching Fox News in early 2009 were told that "Tea Party protests are erupting across the country" and assured that "these tea parties are starting to really take off."

    http://blogs.reuters.com/great.....tea-party/

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    But the old TeaBag fucks would never protest a GOP POTUS.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    PB, commit suicide, please. You are valueless garbage, and not worthy of life. Fucking oxygen thief.

  • JFDeplorable||

    Really? How many people have praised the pres for signing the Omnibus bill? Anyone? Buehler??

    BTW, here's a little snippet of education for you, as you clearly need it. Congress is responsible for WRITING those spending bills. So, if you love your Omnibus bill, you can thank upChuck Schumer, Pelosi AND the RINO GOP senators who added their 2 billion dollars worth to it. And believe me, the RINOs are going to suffer during this year's midterms.

    We don't have to protest like the juveniles on the left. We use our votes. We did it in 2016 and we'll do it again in 2018.

    And the "TeaBag fucks" to which you refer are only protesting that our tax money goes to illiterate white trash hillbillies and morons like you and yours. Call it racist if you will, but we are equal opportunity when it comes to worthless trash.

  • Seamus||

    So they *were* protesting bailouts before Obama was president, but the fact that they started using the term "Tea Party" made them suddenly racist. Got it.

    I guess people protested King George's tea tax in 1773 because they didn't like his mixed-race wife, Queen Charlotte.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So they *were* protesting bailouts before Obama was president

    No, they weren't.

    There were protests prior to 2009 though.

  • damikesc||

    LM, oh protests existed for sure.

    They were just not named "Tea Party"

    ...so, the NAME made them racist, eh?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    So your point of attack is not that there were no voices on the right attacking Bush's spending (among other things), but that they didn't call themselves "Tea Party" until after Obama won.

    Here's a little dose of reality for you: there was never a Tea Party in any organized, concretized sense of the word. And I was around from its early days. No party chairman, no caucuses, no single platform, nothing. The Tea Party was not even eligible to be on the ballot anywhere that I know of. Some candidates who self-identified as "Tea Party" within the GOP gained office, but in general have abandoned calling themselves as such (assuming they are still in office).

    What you had was a brief moment in time when a movement swelled up expressing a mood and a general set of shared beliefs. All that still exists, and favors no political party.

  • damikesc||

    Produce a news link from 2008 or before about a "Tea Party protest" of Bush's TARP program and other stimulus packages of him then.

    National media ignores the annual March for Life in DC.

    Guess it never happens...

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Let me make this simple for you idiots.

    There were no Tea Party protests after Bush signed TARP --- until Obama became POTUS.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|3.27.18 @ 3:24PM|#
    "Let me make this simple for you idiots."

    Let me make it simple for a lefty ignoramus:
    You're supposed 'argument' is worthless unless the reader is a mouth-breathing idiot like you.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It's hilarious that a complete moron like PB would impugn anyone's intellect. As he is a subnormal at best. He is also a poster child for why we need McCarthyism back. I would bet money in Vegas the little turd is guilty of sedition at a minimum. Perhaps even some light treason.

  • spec24||

    "There were no Tea Party protests after Bush signed TARP --- until Obama became POTUS."

    There actually we're, you fucking blowhard. They may not have called themselves the tea party. But there were plenty of people protesting against bigger government, you unbelievably stupid fuck rag.

  • damikesc||

    But there were protests. They just weren't called TP. You said so yourself.

    Ergo, the name made it racist.

  • geo||

    " The origin of the TPM is somewhat unclear, as
    it did not start up as one distinct organization. There are however, a couple of events that are
    believed to be significant in the TPM evolution. The first of these events took place in 2007
    on the two hundred and thirty-fourth anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Congressman Ron
    Paul hosted a fund-raising event in Boston in connection with his 2008 presidential campaign,
    where he re-enacted parts of the Boston Tea Party in order to emphasize his political
    standpoints of less taxation and smaller government. Consequently he called all his
    presidential rallies "Tea Parties." 18"

    Citation: Røed, Kirsti Teige, 2012, THE TRUE NATURE OF THE
    TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, p. 31

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Open wide, timbo.

    You're the kind of guy who has been getting liberal-libertarian progress shoved down his whimpering throat for decades, and your betters aren't through with you yet.

    Repent from right-wing backwardness, intolerance, and science-disdaining ignorance, timbo, or we may start shoving that progress down sideways.

    Either way . . . carry on, clingers.

  • damikesc||

    When violence erupts, I hope you enjoy the aftermath, son.

  • JFDeplorable||

    Yeah, because it's the libertarians who insist that XY chromosomes don't make you a male. And as far as intolerance, you're right. We don't tolerate the absolute stupidity, ignorance of history, laziness and slovenliness that the left wishes to define as "the new normal." You can choose to live like you do, but don't think we won't be judging you. And the rest of the civilized world will be laughing along with us.

  • Linda C||

    Relax arther, all long term polling shows support for gun bans has been falling in 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10 and five year metrics.

  • spec24||

    Oh, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a racist. Fuck off, jackass.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    My response to the racism bullshit is that all progressives that disagree with me are clearly pedophiles, like Tony.

  • Juice||

    The first time I heard about a "Tea Party" it was for a Ron Paul event in 2007. It was "Tea Party" moneybomb thing.

  • sage||

    False. It's someone who places their scrotum into someone's mouth, like I do with your mom.

  • JFDeplorable||

    His description fits what has been described as Obama's preferred partner.

  • Sevo||

    "A pissed off old racist that wants the government out of his Medicare."

    This from a slimy lefty liar who won't pay off his bets.
    Fuck off, turd.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    The amazing part is how he always doubles down on it indefinitely, like we'll just forget he's wrong.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'll bet if there was ever a Reason convention he wouldn't have the guts to attend.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    A snarkily cynical excuse for political humor mostly employed by left-wing glue sniffers hoping to make the Tea Party a subject of hip ridicule and thus prevent the Tea Party from gaining any traction or at least, failing that, manage to alienate both a large portion of the "ordinary" folks as well as homosexual men who were all too familiar with the term as crude sexual innuendo.

  • Tony||

    Except any situation in which someone wants to commit mass murder with no intention of making it out alive.

  • timbo||

    You're so right. We should have absolutely no guns in schools.
    That way, destruction is a guarantee.

    You need to look at the crime statistics in right-to-carry states vs non. There is a proven deterrent effect when psychos think someone might be packing.

  • Tony||

    Okay, so they want to kill as many humans as possible before biting it. Obviously the logical and sane solution is to placed armed guards literally everywhere. Supermarkets, zoos, especially kindergarten classrooms. The more vulnerable, the more guns. The NRA thanks you, but the taxpayers of America who would fund such a massive program are a bit skeptical.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Beat that strawman! Kick his ass!

  • Tony||

    It's a strawman because he was just referring to the places where kids are most of the time?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's a strawman because you made up a position (taxpayer-funded armed guards everywhere!) and attacked that, instead of engaging honestly with anything that anyone here has ever actually said.

  • Sevo||

    "...instead of engaging honestly with anything that anyone here has ever actually said."

    That scumbag has NEVER engaged in honest argument. Never.

  • timbo||

    Rub your fingers through his chest hair!

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Tony buys his straw wholesale.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If i were a strawman i'd be marching for some common-sense Tony control right about now.

  • timbo||

    Common sense has become one of those opposite day monikers that pols like to use.

    Like affordable health care act or the many laws or legislation that have "freedom" in them.

    It has in essence become a code word for a kick to the balls.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    It's code for "fuck you, that's why" or FYTW as we call it around here.

  • timbo||

    You're incapable of rational thought. You have the intellectual capacity of a pound dog.

  • JesseAz||

    Why guards? Are you part of the guards union? Why not just armed adults?

  • cereal_shake||

    Excellent question, Jesse.

  • timbo||

    How about armed anonymous people everywhere and no gun-free zones.

    Better than anything some politician and leftist can come up with and cheaper.

  • Tony||

    This would depend on the concrete fact that the mere presence of guns increases human safety rather than decreases it, correct?

  • Bongo Supreme||

    Correct, Tony. Your sarcasm is palpable as always, but again, the statistics prove it.

  • Tony||

    Then surely you can provide a link to this evidence.

  • sage||

    Hey! You're that guy from the internet!

  • Sevo||

    "Then surely you can provide a link to this evidence."

    You made the claim, scumbag. Let's see the evidence.

  • Sevo||

    "This would depend on the concrete fact that the mere presence of guns increases human safety rather than decreases it, correct?"

    One more lie, scumbag.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Obviously the logical and sane solution is to placed armed guards literally everywhere"'

    Works for liberal leaders.

    NYC has counter-terrorism police armed with FULL AUTO weapons that patrol Times Square and other locations.

    Most political leaders have armed guards. Armed guards protect all sorts of things and have been for decades.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    They placed metal detectors everywhere... I remember going to museums and just walking in, before September 11. Now they have metal detectors and guards. In other countries it's even worse, in Manila you basically have to deal with the TSA every time you go to a mall.

  • damikesc||

    Except any situation in which someone wants to commit mass murder with no intention of making it out alive.

    Given that doing nothing won't stop that either...an armed guard is your best shot there, too.

    Cruz had the benefit of the armed police sitting outside while kids got butchered. The kids seem OK with that, also.

  • wearingit||

    Yep, protesting, what some might say is essential to a democracy, is sad and laughable.

    You're one special kind of idiot.

  • StackOfCoins||

    It's sad when it's kids who know jack shit about anything. And public schools purposefully do not do a good job of informing kids of history, or their civic duty. I remember a whole lot of shit about the Indians, and the Great Depression, and what a douche Hitler was. I can't remember anything about the founding of the Republic, or what led to the Bill of Rights, or really anything that might be of value to a person who would soon be voting. They don't teach those things because those things are damaging to proggies, who want useful idiots.

  • mtrueman||

    Let me guess. Chinese hoax, right?

  • BillEverman||

    "Why would you be against having armed staff or armed officers on campus?"

    Well, that's easy. It's because actual school shooting rampages are vanishingly rare. They might happen at any given school once in one hundred thousand to one hundred fifty thousand years. That means you're spending an enormous amount of tax dollars keeping a cop around for no good reason, when that money could be spent on everything from vaccinations to feeding hungry kids to textbooks to...well, maybe just leaving it in taxpayers' pockets. But meanwhile, that cop gets bored and mission creep sets in. Then, they do what cops do: look for people to arrest. And you've got autistic third graders in handcuffs, mouthy kids charged with disorderly conduct, and teenaged sexters being busted for distributing child pornography.

  • JFree||

    Why would you be against having armed staff or armed officers on campus? A deterrent is the best thing in any dangerous situation.

    That worked well at Parkland didn't it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Parkland not so much, Maryland yes.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It helps when the cop isn't a cowardly little bitch.

  • colorblindkid||

    "So you want children to die!" is exactly how Drug Warriors sold the War on Drugs. Anybody who warned about the consequences was declared to have blood on their hands, advocating for the deaths of children. Despite what modern progressive activists and Democrats would have you believe, these arguments were largely bipartisan at the time, and were even widely used by urban black leaders. It was for our own good!

    We all know how that turned out.

  • colorblindkid||

  • Brandybuck||

    Sorry, students did not organize this national "get out and march" event. They may have sparked it, but it's adults who organized it, adults who approved students skipping school, and adults who are primarily attending. This is adults using children to further their political agenda.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Who cares? The left is completely inept with their protests.

    Remember Occupy Wall Street?

    What a worthless movement that was.

  • Tony||

    *Up twinkles hands*

  • XenoZooValentine||

    It was very effective at giving politicians excuses to do what they wanted to do anyway, it was never about what the protestors wanted.

  • Brandybuck||

    I protested the original Iraq invasion under GHWB. The last dying gasp of the true anti-war movement. Nothing since has been genuine. Either Marxist/Palestinian posturing or just plain old photo ops. Last weekend's "student" march was pure photo op for lefty adults.

  • Libertymike||

    No, there is a genuine anti-war movement that recognizes that Israel has frequently murdered Palestinians and which seeks an end to the barbarism of the Jewish state.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You know who else sought an end to the barbarism of the Jews?

  • Eidde||

    Emperor Hadrian?

  • Fk_Censorship||

    The National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)?

  • Brandybuck||

    Being anti-war is orthogonal to being opposed to Israeli policies. I know it's hard to grasp, but not everything is about the Jews.Sheesh.

  • Eidde||

    Speaking of Jews and war, here's Scarlett Johannson naked. She's the bomb!

  • Libertymike||

    Of course, everything is not about the Jews. I responded to your invocation of the poor darlings.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "No, there is a genuine anti-war movement that recognizes that Israel has frequently murdered Palestinians and which seeks an end to the barbarism of the Jewish state."

    So a bunch of assholes who hate peace loving people desperate to live without bloodthirsty muslims constantly trying to exterminate them?

  • colorblindkid||

    Obama approved a secret kill list with American citizens on it, which gave him the power to assassinate US citizens without due process, outside a war zone, who posed no imminent threat to America.

    That is absolutely the most terrifying thing the government has done in my lifetime. Progressives, the free press, and the "anti-war" movement simply shrugged.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    He was an Al-Qaeda enemy combatant residing in Yemen, for fucks sake.

    That is why almost no one cared.

    I didn't care for sure. And IIRC Ron Paul even objected to the killing of bin Laden.

  • damikesc||

    He was an Al-Qaeda enemy combatant residing in Yemen, for fucks sake.

    That is why almost no one cared.

    I didn't care for sure.

    Yup, great idea to let the government to kill "bad people". Because they'd never go beyond that...

  • Brandybuck||

    We are not, actually, at work with Yemen. Or Al-Qaeda. There is no formal declaration of war. The dude was a criminal, and we do not execute criminals without due process. Shit, we didn't even botehr going through the motions of trying him in absentia.

  • Libertymike||

    I don't recall the SPLC, AIPAC, Israel, Israel Firsters, or any Neo-Cohen stand up for dignity of due process or the plight of an American gunned down so barbarically.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "He was an Al-Qaeda enemy combatant residing in Yemen, for fucks sake."

    How about his son, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time innocently visiting and Obama blew him up too? And when a reporter asked about it Obama's press secretary said "he should have had a better father". How about him?

    Because yeah, giving the government the power to kill American citizens overseas anytime they want for any reason they want is just totally swell.

    And just yesterday you claimed that you believed the same things that Barry Goldwater believed. Bullshit.

  • colorblindkid||

    So what's stopping Trump for drone striking Assata Shakur in Cuba? She's considered a dangerous terrorist by the government.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""He was an Al-Qaeda enemy combatant residing in Yemen, for fucks sake.

    That is why almost no one cared.""

    Maybe, but Obama's admin bombed and killed an entire wedding party. Almost no one cared about that either.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Collateral damage is a fact of life when attacking enemy combatants. Is it your contention we can only attack them when it is 100% certain there could be no collateral damage?

  • Sevo||

    "Who cares? The left is completely inept with their protests."

    Yes, you are. Along with your lies.

  • tommhan||

    Yes worthless and not to mention the enormous mess they left for others to clean up and left a huge mess again this week.

  • MarkLastname||

    And we should all be thankful socialists are generally morons; unfortunately their sympathizers are liable to control Congress sometime soon.

  • Jerryskids||

    Look, if it will make the delicate snowflakes feel better, let's just tell them we gathered up all the guns and threw them in a volcano. The dumb fucks won't know the difference.

  • Eidde||

    And if they still won't disperse, say the volcano needs a few virgins.

  • silver.||

    You think high school kids these days are virgins?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I mean, I was.

  • silver.||

    That's because you weren't around to take it from yourself. Times change, and BUCS comes to fuck.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""You think high school kids these days are virgins?"'

    The ugly ones.

  • Tony||

    But the guns they want banned are not protected under any right in this country.

  • Brendan||

    Which country are you referring to?

    In the US, they certainly are. See Amendment #2, US Constitution.

    US v Miller is some relevant case law.

  • Tony||

    "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

    --Heller

  • JesseAz||

    And further on they uphold a y common use weapon. Silly man.

  • Brendan||

    Heller wasn't a thorough examination either. Miller (at least mildly) protects firearms useful in the preservation of a militia ie., military arms; Heller explicitly finds that 2A is an individual right and that a handgun ban violates that individual right.

  • Tony||

    We could go back and forth forever arguing whether Miller expands or restrains the right to own firearms, as there's no agreement. It is a fact however that semiautomatic rifles are not explicitly protected in the constitution.

  • cereal_shake||

    Are they not arms?

  • Tony||

    Are grenades not arms? Tanks? Nukes?

  • cereal_shake||

    They are not in common use.

  • Brandybuck||

    Tanks are fine. Tank shells on the other hand...

    Seriously. Tanks are legal. I think the barrels need to be plugged or something, but actually owning a tank is okay.

  • some guy||

    Yes Tony. Grenades, tanks and nukes are all defined as arms and your right to own them was intended to be protected under the second amendment. The words "arms" and "infringed" have very clear and specific meanings no matter how hard SCOTUS has contorted itself to decide otherwise.

    But guess what, laws don't keep people from owning dangerous things. If they did Pakistan and North Korea wouldn't have nukes. What keeps average Joes from owning nukes is the fact that it is absurdly difficult and expensive to build a nuke.

    Average people do, however, have tanks and grenades. Some of them are "legal" via permit. Some are not. But they still have them.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "It is a fact however that semiautomatic rifles are not explicitly protected in the constitution."

    Neither is communication on the internet. Nor is there any prohibition explicitly expressed in the Constitution against having your smartphone searched. The Establishment Clause doesn't explicitly mention Muslims, either, so no mosque for you...........

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Titfucking isn't specifically protected under the constitution either. Nor are a lot of things we take for granted.

  • damikesc||

    We could go back and forth forever arguing whether Miller expands or restrains the right to own firearms, as there's no agreement. It is a fact however that semiautomatic rifles are not explicitly protected in the constitution.

    Nor is abortion.
    Nor is gay marriage.

    ...yet, here we are today...

  • Brandybuck||

    Nor is women being allowed to vote, come to think of it. Throw transgenders into the mix too. What gives them the right to vote, own land, enter into contracts, etc?

  • Tony||

    What I mean is not explicitly protected in the constitution as determined by the supreme court. Unlike abortion and gay marriage.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""What I mean is not explicitly protected in the constitution as determined by the supreme court. ""

    No that wasn't what you meant. Because what is explicit does not need to be determined by anyone else.

  • JesseAz||

    You mean like determined in Heller when they mention common use weapons?

  • damikesc||

    What I mean is not explicitly protected in the constitution as determined by the supreme court.

    They're legal currently, so obviously, they are protected.

    God you're stupid.

    I love this whole "Rights IN the Constitution aren't rights, but 'shit that is legal' created by SCOTUS are" belief.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""It is a fact however that semiautomatic rifles are not explicitly protected in the constitution."'

    Neither are abortions

  • damikesc||

    Hell, if they weren't protected by the Constitution, why would any law be needed to take them? We don't need new laws to, say, take illegal drugs from users...

  • damikesc||

    Hell, if they weren't protected by the Constitution, why would any law be needed to take them? We don't need new laws to, say, take illegal drugs from users...

  • damikesc||

    Hell, if they weren't protected by the Constitution, why would any law be needed to take them? We don't need new laws to, say, take illegal drugs from users...

  • damikesc||

    Hell, if they weren't protected by the Constitution, why would any law be needed to take them? We don't need new laws to, say, take illegal drugs from users...

  • Bongo Supreme||

    You make the mistake of believing our rights are granted by the government. In this case, the supreme court. All people, no matter which country they belong to, have the rights of property and self-defense. The fact that the supreme court has failed to adequately protect those rights does not mean that they don't exist.

  • Tony||

    All people no matter where they are born have a right to free healthcare. See how this works?

  • some guy||

    Healthcare is a service. It has to be provided by someone else. You can't force someone else to give you something because that infringes their rights. The right to self defense does not infringe on anyone else's rights and therefore is different. But you know this. We've been over this before. You've been wrong on this many times and yet you keep persisting.

  • some guy||

    And let me add, Tony, that you do have the right to whatever free healthcare you can provide yourself. No one has the right to stop you from bandaging your own wounds or setting your own bones. Just like they don't have a right to stop you from defending yourself. That's the analogy you're really looking for.

  • Brandybuck||

    Negative vs positive rights, in other words. Tony has ever right to "free healthcare" insofar as it is a negative right. No one can deprive him of it without due process. But he does not have the positive right that would compel others to provide it for him.

  • Tony||

    Not that I want to have this conversation for the billionth time, but your property rights require the paid services of other people.

  • some guy||

    Not that I want to have this conversation for the billionth time, but your property rights require the paid services of other people.

    How so? I own myself and the products of my labor. I trade voluntarily for everything else. Unless you're suggesting that property rights are provided by cops. But you're far too smart to get confused between the source of a right and protector of a right, aren't you? After all, a right doesn't cease to be a right just because it's being infringed. Otherwise only might makes right. And nobody wants that...

  • Sevo||

    "Not that I want to have this conversation for the billionth time, but your property rights require the paid services of other people."

    Did you have a point other than to prove how stupid you are?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""All people no matter where they are born have a right to free healthcare."'

    I don't see any right to any free anything.

    If health care is a right, it just means the government cannot impede you from getting it.

  • Brian||

    Tony:
    "But the guns they want banned are not protected under any right in this country."

    Bullshit. Some of them are calling for a ban of all privately owned guns. That's protected by the constitution, so, sorry. Feel free to amend the constitution.

    For some ideas.

    At least he understands a little how this is supposed to work.

  • Brian||

  • Sevo||

    "But the guns they want banned are not protected under any right in this country."

    And Tony lies yet once more.
    I've long ago lost count.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I guess his speech rights aren't protected either, since there were no computers when the Constitution was written, it only applies to printing presses and quill pens.

  • MarkLastname||

    And I bet Tony also believes Trump has every right to shut down the New York Times' website: after all, it doesn't involve a printing press, which is clearly what 'freedom of the press' refers to.

  • MarkLastname||

    The guns they want banned are not functionally more dangerous than the ones they supposedly don't want banned. In fact as far as shootings go, semi-Auto pistols are more of a threat than semi-Auto rifles.

    If someone says they only want to ban Toyota's, then makes arguments that apply equally to all cars, it's a safe bet they actually want to (and will, given the chance) ban all cars.

  • cereal_shake||

    And a pony too.

  • Rich||

    Some kids live in constant fear of being shot in their classrooms.

    Obviously CPS should take these poor kids away from their neglectful/abusive parents.

  • Brandybuck||

    "Some kids have been so brainwashed that they live in constant fear of being shot in their classrooms."

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "We have gone from a government of the people to a government by hallucinating mob, driven mad by television."

  • Rich||

    demanding that Congress take decisive action.

    "Very well. Public education is hereby abolished."

  • H. Farnham||

    That kid giving the speech does a pretty good Mussolini. Hope he grows up and takes his talents to Hollywood rather than D.C.

  • Get lit||

    I think they're advocating for what they perceive to be ways to mitigate violence in general not necessarily only school violence. It's just a question of how much you value the right to own certain weapons versus what good you believe could be achieved by restricting the right. I'm not sure the violence problem is best addressed by gun control. I think it's more of an attitude, civic, cultural and species problem.

  • Brandybuck||

    The students are screaming that politicians have to immediately solve the problem. It's not about dialog or governance or solutions or reality, it's solely about instant gratification as applied to politics. They have learned that if they whine and scream some adult will pop a pacifier in their mouth, or buy them that candy bar or wipe their bottom or whatever.

    I'm not blaming the students, I'm blaming the adults for infantilizing adolescents.

  • JesseAz||

    Why did the white kids appropriate the black Powe salute? Why is the news giving them more airtime than blm got?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Echo chambers seldom produce good results.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Especially with ducks (quacks don't echo).

  • AlmightyJB||

    They're totally not being 100% manipulated.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Oh my. I just noticed in that YouTube still the "PROTECT KIDS NOT GUNS" sign. Unfortunate choice of image to place on that sign. "Hands up, don't shoot" is a pushback against the one group these protestors seem to want to see remain armed.

  • timbo||

    They have no earthly idea what they are protesting. They are zombies which immediately takes this thing from very sad to hilarious.

  • silver.||

    I don't think it's hilarious at all. It's like a cult. It's like any other populist movement-tons of inflammatory rhetoric and no individual, critical thought.

    It's pretty clear that this behavior won't change with age, either. The same groupthink is visible in supporters of the conservative, nationalist backlashes in Europe. The genuine fears and insecurities of the people are being leveraged for the sole purpose of elevating a handful of sociopaths to power. It terrifies me that so many of the issues being heralded as epidemics are anything but; calm, polite discussion and examination would make this clear, so such a thing has to be suppressed.

    I know that aloofness is part of why libertarianism is so unpopular, but I just can't stop seeing similarities between groups that spend all day legitimately thinking that the other groups are malicious, stupid, or both.

    It's politics as usual, and as the last kid said in the video, "it's just getting .. I'm just getting tired of it."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The genuine fears and insecurities of the people are being leveraged for the sole purpose of elevating a handful of sociopaths to power.

    Dude, this is just called "government."

  • DajjaI||

    They are agitating for a gun war, which will kill far more of them than berzerk autistic kids. Speaking of which, if they really wanted to reduce violence, they would end autism 'treatment', and they would round up all the homeschool kids and drag them to school with them. And of course, stop bullying them. These marches are really just witch hunts against their autistic peers.

  • silver.||

    Hadn't heard of that story, Dajjal. It's pretty clear to me that a lot of socially deficient young men are getting into the alt-right and other extremist movements because it offers them a place to feel wanted. I wonder why it is that they've escalated from arguing that certain Starcraft races are better to claiming that certain races of people are better.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Blizzard had perfected the game balance and so everyone knew the arguing was futile.

  • silver.||

    ... dude you're right. Blizzard created the alt-right. With no reason to chant, "BLIZZARD PLZ NERF," they've taken it to the ballots and the streets.

    Immigrants are getting the low-paying jobs?
    TRUMP PLZ NERF
    Affirmative action?
    TRUMP PLZ NERF
    Women can abuse courts and Title IX to screw you?
    TRUMP PLZ NERF

    Blizzard created the illusion of balance and fairness.

  • Texasmotiv||

    This is the best reason post I've ever read.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I would be delighted to never hear "autistic" used as an argument, an insult, or an excuse again.

    The hype over it is ridiculous. I remember when every kid who was too happy was hyperactive, and every kid who was too sad was bipolar, now every kid who's a little awkward is autistic.

    I have sympathy for people who have an actual mental problem, but being a nerd is not a disability and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Stop feeding this bullshit.

  • silver.||

    I think the obsessions with diagnoses and medical corrections for everything are a double-edged sword. There need to be standardized criteria, and knowing about one's condition can make it easier to seek relevant support, but it can totally become a crutch. How tempting is it for a parent to say, "oh my kid does poorly in school because he has ADHD," when the kid is normal for thinking school is boring?

    I like the attitude, "oh I have X,Y,Z, but so what? I'm overcoming it."

    Seems like there's a lot of defeatism. The mother in the article had just assumed that her kid would never thrive with his disadvantages. As a society I think we've failed, ironically, in being optimistic and supportive of people with brain cooties.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I can't watch kids march against for selling our rights short because they're scared and come away with anything but sadness that we've raised a generation of people who are proud of their cowardice.

    Being scared isn't something to be proud of. It's unmanly.

    I blame the Bush administration for a lot of this. How many times did we hear from the Bush administration that if we were sticking up for the Fifth Amendment or Eighth Amendment in regards to the treatment of terrorists, then we were insufficiently frightened. How many times did we hear them tell us if we were worried about our Fourth Amendment rights in regards to the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping, then we were insufficiently frightened?

    Sure, the Obama administration continued those arguments--and added others like them. If you oppose Barack Obama killing innocent children with drone strikes in Yemen without a declaration of war, then you're insufficiently frightened, etc., etc.

    Is it any surprise that after 16 years of such publicly aired cowardice that our children have been conditioned to believe that our rights and liberties are only worth it if no one gets hurt?

    No wonder they don't understand the logic of the Second Amendment. Isn't the Second Amendment about people being willing to put themselves in harm's way to defend their rights?

  • some guy||

    I was in high school when Columbine happened. I remember it kicked off a round of gun debates, as usual, but I don't remember kids being particularly afraid or worried about going to school. It was a just a random bad thing that happened. Oh and then they started locking all the exterior doors and making visitors go through the main entrance by the office. That was it. Otherwise life went on as usual.

    The thing is, not all of today's adolescents are snowflakes. Only some of them are. Hopefully it's an outspoken minority. Either way, when they get to the real world their more resilient peers are going to eat their lunch. I honestly think this thing will correct itself in the next generation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I hope you're right.

    But it isn't just kids. It's adults, too.

    During the Bush administration right wing people would come here to this site and act like we should all be ashamed of ourselves for not being as scared of terrorists as we should be.

    Then they would try to one up each other over how scared they were--as if being more afraid of terrorism than someone else somehow made them more manly.

    9/11, or the way our politicians of both stripes reacted to it, seems to have given an awful lot of people the idea that cowardice is a virtue, that being scared is manly, etc. And it shouldn't be surprising to see people willing to sell our Second Amendment rights short on the same logic.

    Before 9/11, the suggestion that we should sell our rights short out of fear would typically be met with ridicule and charges of cowardice--treason even. Whatever the source of that was, we need to get it back again.

  • Brian||

    It looks like this Hogg kid has gone...

    * dons sunglasses *

    crazy.

  • Eidde||

    Hog-wild?

  • Rebel Scum||

    Missed an opportunity there.

  • Eidde||

    Into the volcano with me!

  • Brian||

    Anyway, it's time to repeal the National Firearms Act.

  • damikesc||

    Dammit, Robbie, they are emoting.

    They ain't got no time for facts or reality!

  • mtrueman||

    "American schools are profoundly safe, and most likely getting safer: According to researchers at Northeastern University, shooting incidents involving students have actually decreased in recent years, and in the 1990s the overall crime rate was much higher than it is today."

    Your own source here tells us:

    "There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel's research."

    But wikipedia tells us that so far this year 27 have been shot to death at school. That's no decrease. It's actually an increase over the past 25 years.

  • Brian||

    How do averages work?

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

    or maybe . . .

    (x+27)/25=10

  • mtrueman||

    According to wikipedia, 9 were shot to death at school in 2016, 15 were shot to death at school during 2017. In less than 3 months of 2018 27 have been shot to death at school. If you think that's a decrease, please explain.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I wonder how many have died in car accidents while using a cell phone?

    The big difference is they want to keep their phone, but they don't want you to keep your firearm.

  • mtrueman||

    "I wonder how many have died in car accidents while using a cell phone?"

    Wonder away. Anything to avoid the intentional inaccuracies the author is peddling here.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Sometimes I don't read these articles but you inspired me to look at this one. I saw many charts that don't necessarily prove your point unless you nitpick the starting point of the trend.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""the author is peddling here.""

    And by that you mean the researchers at Northeastern University.

  • mtrueman||

    "And by that you mean the researchers at Northeastern University."

    Zat spozed to impress me? Never heard of the place.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Sounds like you are trying to avoid the accuracies the author is presenting.

  • mtrueman||

    Like the car and cell phone accidents you were going on about a little while ago?

  • MarkLastname||

    Isn't it curious that you pick these 3 years specifically. If I can find three consecutive years of non increasing average global temperatures will you decide global warming is a lie?

  • mtrueman||

    "Isn't it curious that you pick these 3 years specifically. "

    Not curious at all if you understood that these are magic, anti-gun fondling years.

  • Eidde||

    I suspect that's a 1st Amendment "problem," as coverage of these losers gives other losers ideas.

  • Sevo||

    I suspect trueman is here spouting lies and nonsense yet again.

  • Libertymike||

    He doesn't want to fall behind Tony.

  • colorblindkid||

    And several European countries with almost no guns and no regular murders have a higher mass shooting death rate than America does, per capita. Rare and isolated events do not indicate trends, which is why proggies always start terrorism death counts after 9/11 to prove Nazis are more dangerous than Muslims, and start European mass murder counts after Bataclan.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    They also have a very loose criteria on who's a Nazis.

  • mtrueman||

    "Rare and isolated events do not indicate trends, "

    Take it up with the author who is claiming that the number is somehow decreasing.

  • JesseAz||

    Where does he say it's decreasing? Since when is a one year increase a trend?

  • mtrueman||

    "Where does he say it's decreasing? "

    In the article.

  • Brandybuck||

    Killed while attending school, or just killed one school grounds after school hours or over the weekend? Drug deals tend to get violent, and a lot of drug deals happen on school grounds. "School" is not a magic word that suddenly makes the violence even more violent. But it is a magic word that turns off the logic and turns on the unthinking emotion. Also, the population has increased over the past 25 years to. The rate of "school" shooting might actually be going down.

    The single mass school shooting this year is a tragedy. A horrible tragedy. But let's not bend the statistics to fit our preferred narrative.

  • colorblindkid||

    As with every single statistic about violent crimes and gun crimes, the Democrats deliberately ignore the elephant in the room, which is that black men are vastly more likely to commit murder and violent crime. They're even twice as likely as white people to commit hate crimes (about 24% of offenders most years). By ignoring this and pushing for stricter laws, more crackdowns, and more gun control, they will only wind up throwing thousands of more innocent black men in prison, just purely based off statistics.

    Then they will claim gun control was a racist right-wing idea the entire time and absolve themselves of blame.

  • mtrueman||

    "As with every single statistic about violent crimes and gun crimes, the Democrats deliberately ignore the elephant in the room, which is that black men are vastly more likely to commit murder and violent crime."

    If you are so keen on avoiding being shot to death by a black man, take refuge in a school.

  • Priscilla King||

    During D.C.'s gun ban years Black men (and teenaged boys) were also vastly more likely to be shot in the back than other demographic groups. Proving?

  • mtrueman||

    "The rate of "school" shooting might actually be going down."

    Not according to the figures I found. 27 in less than 3 months vs. 15 in the previous year is going up. Increasing, not decreasing as the author tells us.

    "But let's not bend the statistics to fit our preferred narrative."

    It's the author who is 'bending the statistics,' claiming that 27 is somehow smaller than 15. Don't fall for it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Not according to the figures I found. 27 in less than 3 months vs. 15 in the previous year is going up.""

    I don't know what the answer is, but I do know two months of data is not a trend.

  • mtrueman||

    " but I do know two months of data is not a trend."

    But how is it a decrease, 27 has traditionally been recognized as larger than 15.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Sure it's a increase over last year. Does that make you feel better?

    But two months data does not show any trend.

  • mtrueman||

    Some phenomena (like school shootings) may not need more than two months to establishing themselves as a 'trend', however you want to define it. So your time limit is arbritrary and ill conceived. These days with internet and all, things move faster. Take the number of school walkouts over gun issues over the past 25 years. From nowhere to somewhere very quickly.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Some phenomena (like school shootings) may not need more than two months to establishing themselves as a 'trend',"'

    Then you know nothing about analyzing trends.

  • mtrueman||

    We're discussing incidents, not trends.

  • silver.||

    I agree with Tricky on this. That certainly shows an increase ... with absolutely no statistical significance. It reminds me of a where a regression analysis was used to prove that the ALCU's limitations on stop-and-frisk has markedly increased crime. No such analyses have been done on school shooting data, so three numbers over three years are insufficient to prove any sort of trend.

    From a cold-hearted statistical standpoint, the frequency of these tragedies is so minuscule as to not matter. 5 high-school kids kill themselves every day. More kids have died of suicide in the past week than have died of mass shootings in the past year. That's one of the reasons I support the march. Kids feel like their lives don't matter to politicians, because they absolutely do not. The budget just passed proves that.

  • Libertymike||

    But the regression analyses is, at bottom, useless as it is nothing more than ergo hoc post propter hoc analysis.

  • Libertymike||

    Take one look at the top of page 19 of the paper.

    There you will find what the authors authoritatively asseverate are the four characteristics that must be present in order to describe the spike in murders in 2016. To cabin causation to those four characteristics is check and mate on your fucking garbage theory.

  • silver.||

    I personally think aliens introduced methamphetamine to the water in Chicago at the end of 2015.

  • mtrueman||

    "From a cold-hearted statistical standpoint, the frequency of these tragedies is so minuscule as to not matter."

    Then how do you account for all the attention these events garner, even by the commentariat here who are drawn like flies to Reason's exhaustive coverage of the issue?

    It may not matter from a statistical perspective, but statistics has its limitations and you'd be wrong to dismiss the significance of school shooting only because of their rarity. Kids at school getting shot to death. You wouldn't want that in your neighbourhood, would you, even if you knew that statistically it didn't matter?

  • JesseAz||

    Statistics have many limitations. Histrionics don't.

  • mtrueman||

    Humans put a lot of stock in the security of children. Even when they're not theirs. They care for the security of children even more than their precious right to fondle guns. Statistics work well with a large volume of fairly limited outcomes. Like casinos. These school shootings are one off events and rare. Statistical analysis doesn't have much to say about such events, other than to tell you the events are meaningless.

  • Sevo||

    "But wikipedia tells us that so far this year 27 have been shot to death at school."

    And none but the abysmally ignorant cite Wiki as a source. So, of course, you do.

  • mtrueman||

    You got a better source? One that shows the number actually decreasing? Of course you don't.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Clear backpacks and ID badges are items to help them feel safe.

    The funny thing about the complaint about ID badges is that when they go to college they'll get one. I guess they are not ready for that.

  • Eidde||

    In college you only have to whip it out if a college official asks.

    Let me rephrase that...

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Personally, I'm not a fan of armed guards in schools. I would prefer that kids don't grow up thinking that armed authority is the answer. It works great for building the authoritarian state.

    However, when a shooter breaks into a class room, I think the people in the room should have another option that to die. Anyone in that situation deserves the right to fight back, whether they succeed or not.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Students say your right to own a gun conflicts with their right to feel secure.

    My rights outweigh your feelings. The end.

    That said, I find this concentration on "feeling" secure rather than actually "being" relatively secure to be kindof disturbing.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    They think THEIR feelings is what should rule.

    It's all about them. Not anyone else.

  • Rhywun||

    Students say your right to own a gun conflicts with their right to feel secure.

    And their answer is to ensure that only criminals get to carry guns. Makes perfect sense.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I am old enough to remember when gang violence was the problem.

    Both the media and politicians focused on gang violence. Gang violence was considered the greater threat than mass shootings.

    Time magazine even put a picture of Yummy Sandifer on the front page.

    A columnist for the Long beach Press-Telgram ran a series of columns titled "Javier's Legacy"

    and yet, somewhere along the way, gang violence ceased to be a problem. None of the politicians nor network pundits mention the problem of gang violence anymore.

    I wonder why.

  • enviro414||

    It is about 1300 times more likely that death of a person less than 19 years old will be from something other than a school shooting. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZLBHw_VAAABK9d.png

  • mtrueman||

    School shootings should be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. Nothing like a weekly school shooting to relieve all the humdrum suicides, poisonings, animal maulings that fill up the rest of the week.

  • MaleMatters||

    Re: "March for Our Lives Kids Don't Know Just How Safe Schools Are"

    Not only that, it doesn't think about unintended consequences of gun control:

    "Gun Control and Mass Killers"
    https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/
    2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun
    -control-fails-against-mass-killers/

    Combine the urls and delete the spaces.

  • CuriousKevMo||

    "But feelings shouldn't trump facts"
    If true, wouldn't this eliminate something like 80% of political discourse?

  • CATT||

    "March for Our Lives Kids" are just that...kids! They don't shit from shinola.

  • XM||

    The liberal adults who organized this march are the same people who would denounce Ayann Hirsi Ali as a hater because she's SSSSOOOO unfair to Islam, but they'll encourage kids to demonize the NRA.

    You know, I bookmark every gun stats that's posted on this site (mostly by Sullum) and others. Every time I see lefties floating discredited gun hysteria on Disqus, I respond to them with the links. There was a lefty troll who insisted that gun massacre declined after the assault rifle ban (now gone). I linked to the recent article here that most of the decline involved handguns. He went away.

    These kids are spoon fed propaganda all throughout their formative years. Try to have a political conversation with a 19 year old - all they do is spit out talking points. They know exactly what to say to trash capitalism on cue.

    But that in itself is not the issue. Decent people who were misled will open their eyes when shown the truth. What about these students? Everything I've seen about them suggest that they're future antifa who doesn't care about constitutional rights beyond "empowerment" issues. They'll carry over their emotionally driven agendas to other areas.

  • mtrueman||

    "but they'll encourage kids to demonize the NRA."

    Shoot 'em now when you've got the chance, moran.

  • Eeyore||

    Ban school. It will be the most effective way to stop school shootings.

  • mtrueman||

    School shootings should be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. Nothing like a weekly school shooting to relieve all the humdrum suicides, poisonings, animal maulings that fill up the rest of the week.

  • Tionico||

    you said: "Some kids live in constant fear of being shot in their classrooms"

    This is not true, at least not as comon as this rally would have people believe.

    Most of the vocal puppets seen in publis this past month or so, ll on a tear to confiscate our guns, are TOLD what they fear, and TOLD what must be done. How many of these noiseboxes ever made that same claim two months ago? Maybe one or two? To suddenly turn into scairdycats in a month on the basis of ONE incident is tantamount to being petrified of every dog on the street because one nasty hyper little poodle dog BIT you. SUch inordinate fear is a clear sign of mental instability.

    These kids are being insulated, then programmed, then manipulated. NONE I saw queried could even explain what the deadly scourge of our land, the "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" even IS..... ALL of them said they needed to be baned, but NONE of them know what one is.

    The keepers of the inmates are running the asylum from their puppet strings. What kid WOUlDN"t want a free ride on a Delta airliner to hold some placards (WE will decide what goes on those placards) and mug the news cameras? Free restaurant food? Hey' I'm IN.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    What's gong to happen is gun sales will spike, and donations to the NRA, tha 2A foundation, etc.. will skyrocket, and antimgun candidates will, for the most part, get creamed in November. Except in places like CA where Liberty is pretty much dead. That is unless Sessions gets canned and we get an AG with balls that will start arresting most of the state leadership and many of the mayors in CA. Which could escalate into CA being under martial law. Which would be awesome.

  • Toaster||

    " In fact, students are orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash on their way to school than they are to be gunned down on school grounds."

    That's terrible logic. Yes, accidental injury, including MVAs, are the most common cause of death for teens. However, suicide is #2 and homicide is #3. Saying we don't need to worry about gun violence because it's not in the #1 spot is the equivalent of saying, "funding breast cancer research? but heart disease kills way more people!"

  • JFree||

    Teenagers have every right to fight for a cause they believe in, and the students from Stoneman Douglas are justifiably enraged about an event that claimed the lives of so many friends and classmates. But feelings shouldn't trump facts, and we should never craft policies from a place of fear.

    Yes facts should trump feelings in crafting policies. Problem is - the FACTS say the US is easily the most incompetent developed country at changing mortality rates among the relatively young.

    Older than 4 or so and up to 24, external causes - vehicles, homicide, accidents, wars, etc - are the major causes of mortality. The general decisions of a society itself are the causes of death among the younger inexperienced members of it. Up until the mid/late 1970's, our rates were pretty much comparable with other developed countries (and all were much higher than now). All countries reduced those rates during the 80's. Then we stopped - and everyone else kept reducing those rates.

    The difference is now so big that 'being born American' so to speak is the biggest mortality risk factor in the age group. The kids may not really grasp what's really happening - but clearly the adults don't grasp it and don't care either.

  • JFree||

    If I were to posit a political turning point for our failure to do anything constructive since the late 80's, it's that we decided on differential imprisonment as the 'only solution' to the only problem we decided to be concerned with. For those young folks who commit drug-related homicide or anything else deemed 'anti-social', the solution is go to jail and wreck a life. So kids - if you see any of your peers doing anti-social dangerous stuff just tell adults and we'll deal that problem. For adults who commit vehicular homicide, well that's not really homicide anyway is it so we shouldn't wreck a life (or hinder a robotech).

    Over time, the message ends up being pretty clear and generational - and looks to me like a ton of commenters here still go along with that notion. Which is probably why it resonates in politics and why we do nothing now to deal with ACTUAL underlying mortality rates.

  • prediksi singapore||

    Anda adalah tipe pria yang telah mendapatkan kemajuan libertarian liberal mendorong tenggorokannya yang merintih selama beberapa dekade, dan atasan Anda belum melalui Anda.

    Bertobatlah dari keterbelakangan sayap kanan, intoleransi, dan ketidaktahuan penguasaan ilmu pengetahuan, timbo, atau kita mungkin mulai mendorong kemajuan itu ke samping.

  • prediksifajar||

    kode syair togel

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online