Texas Elementary School Shooting, as many as 22 dead, including Children

[Linkedblade]

"Both sides" deflection is just intentional dishonesty.

Are you claiming there's an equivalence to be drawn, here? Because if so, I categorically deny that, and you'll never be able to provide convincing evidence to back up that ridiculous claim.



Ah, so you really don't have any intent of engaging honestly, then. At least you've made it clear pretty early.

No, the obfuscation is clearly evident from the topic and the position people are taking in this thread. Most mass shootings happen among highly populated areas, not necessarily soft targets. See this map:

But that's fine continue to claim it's only schools, and only children. Also, notice from the map that the clusters are in cities.

- - - Updated - - -

Share some examples of this, then.



Because that's what their actions repeatedly say.



Which is similarly a complex issue tied to more than just policies on crime, including poverty which is often a primary driver of crime. Not to mention places like Chicago which see gun violence despite their gun control, because simply going to the next county and buying a gun (which happens, often times illegally even) is easy.

An example? You repeating "republicans dont care about kids."

Gun control policies are state wide, leaving the county doesnt matter. Leaving state is a completely different matter, but even then you're still restricted to your own states' laws.

- - - Updated - - -

and that's the problem...

No, it's not. We have representatives. It's designed that way.

[Edge-]

But that's fine continue to claim it's only schools, and only children. Also, notice from the map that the clusters are in cities.

You say this as if cities just have the power to change the US Constitution within their cities, or federal law or even state law.

Which is uh...like...a hilariously empty strawman. Of course cities are where there will be more violence, including mass shootings in the US, they're where there are higher concentrations of people and poverty - with poverty consistently being shown to be a primary factor in driving crime rates up. Same is generally true in other nations that don't have mass shootings but see higher incidents of crime in major cities, especially those with higher concentrations of people in poverty.

The point being that it's the elected officials at the federal level who are the ones who can actually do something about this, and even the state level via a Constitutional Amendment. City officials have little to no real ability to enact change on this front, with Chicago's high rate of violence driven in part due to people simply leaving Chicago to purchase firearms they otherwise couldn't legally purchase in the city, and bringing them back into the city to be used.

[Linkedblade]

Well, you learn something new every day. I mean, I guess it is technically a military trial court. I'm just surprised it splashed over, that's all.

Felons and wife beaters, well, I'm not even going to pretend to be upset about their lack of guns.

Well, i'm not sure about what wunksta said. In the case of a violent crime causing a dishonorable discharge, it's similar to a felony.

In fact if you look over the form 4473, that you have to fill out before every firearm purchase via a dealer, question 11 hits all sorts of different information.

[Edge-]

An example? You repeating "republicans dont care about kids."

Based on their rhetoric and actions, yes. I can cite specific comments and actions (inactions) they've taken over the years to back this up. I can also cite budget cuts to services for schools and children, rejection of programs like expanded school lunches or expanded medicaid access that would help cover children. I can cite the repeated failure of Republicans to take any action following school mass shootings, where their only response seems to be "thoughts and prayers".

Gun control policies are state wide, leaving the county doesnt matter.

This is not true. Hence why Chicago long had a ban on handguns until it was overturned in 2010. Hence why Chicago and Cook County have banned some assault-style weapons that remain available legally outside the city/county limits.

Leaving state is a completely different matter, but even then you're still restricted to your own states' laws.

To a point, sure. But it highlights how such narrow attempts to address the issue - at the local or even state level (which CA also does and is also routinely ignored as folks just go to Nevada to buy their guns) - is ineffective and pointless given the ease of access to those same weapons elsewhere.

Thanks for highlighting why this is futile on a local level, and why trying to paint Democrats in control of cities as "doing nothing" actually can't attempt to seriously resolve the problem because they lack the authority.

[Linkedblade]

You say this as if cities just have the power to change the US Constitution within their cities, or federal law or even state law.

Which is uh...like...a hilariously empty strawman. Of course cities are where there will be more violence, including mass shootings in the US, they're where there are higher concentrations of people and poverty - with poverty consistently being shown to be a primary factor in driving crime rates up. Same is generally true in other nations that don't have mass shootings but see higher incidents of crime in major cities, especially those with higher concentrations of people in poverty.

The point being that it's the elected officials at the federal level who are the ones who can actually do something about this, and even the state level via a Constitutional Amendment. City officials have little to no real ability to enact change on this front, with Chicago's high rate of violence driven in part due to people simply leaving Chicago to purchase firearms they otherwise couldn't legally purchase in the city, and bringing them back into the city to be used.

I don't think you understand how incredibly expensive firearms are, and that poverty would bar individuals from getting them. So, someone who can't afford food or shelter is going to be able to afford to travel and purchase a firearm.

Cities can do something about it. But things like zoning laws and policing are frowned upon. We had a year or two of what defund the police looks like. It's not very effective at anything, but making things worse.

[Breccia]

Well, i'm not sure about what wunksta said.

He said the GOP wasn't campaigning to give felons their guns back. I missed the "not" and thought they were actively campaigning to remove those restrictions in the new Texas law. Whoops.

[Edge-]

Cities can do something about it. But things like zoning laws and policing are frowned upon.

What can they do? And you're gonna need to connect the "zoning laws" dot for me.

We had a year or two of what defund the police looks like.

We did? Because I saw very few cities actually reducing police budgets, and the few that decided to start spending more on social workers seem to largely have success stories to their name.

Got some examples?

[Linkedblade]

Based on their rhetoric and actions, yes. I can cite specific comments and actions (inactions) they've taken over the years to back this up. I can also cite budget cuts to services for schools and children, rejection of programs like expanded school lunches or expanded medicaid access that would help cover children. I can cite the repeated failure of Republicans to take any action following school mass shootings, where their only response seems to be "thoughts and prayers".



This is not true. Hence why Chicago long had a ban on handguns until it was overturned in 2010. Hence why Chicago and Cook County have banned some assault-style weapons that remain available legally outside the city/county limits.



To a point, sure. But it highlights how such narrow attempts to address the issue - at the local or even state level (which CA also does and is also routinely ignored as folks just go to Nevada to buy their guns) - is ineffective and pointless given the ease of access to those same weapons elsewhere.

Thanks for highlighting why this is futile on a local level, and why trying to paint Democrats in control of cities as "doing nothing" actually can't attempt to seriously resolve the problem because they lack the authority.

Stop acting like republicans are the only ones that leverage schools and childcare for political points. I've seen democrats all across the south try to cut similar things, because the counties and states couldn't provide the funding.

There's no such thing as an "assault weapon." Again, another obfuscation.

You cannot as a Californian citizen go to Nevada to buy a firearm. That's illegal. You have to have it shipped to a dealer and you must follow all CA law when it comes to purchasing it. Meaning every rule/law CA has must be complied.

- - - Updated - - -

What can they do? And you're gonna need to connect the "zoning laws" dot for me.



We did? Because I saw very few cities actually reducing police budgets, and the few that decided to start spending more on social workers seem to largely have success stories to their name.

Got some examples?

Oh it's simple, zone out areas of people you don't want and turn it into a stripmall or whatever. Gentrify.

Exactly, but it only made the situations worse in places like LA county. Only caused chaos across the country.

[Endus]

No, the obfuscation is clearly evident from the topic and the position people are taking in this thread. Most mass shootings happen among highly populated areas, not necessarily soft targets. See this map:

But that's fine continue to claim it's only schools, and only children. Also, notice from the map that the clusters are in cities.

So the most shootings occur where the most people and, thus, the most potential offenders are.

If your distribution lines up with population distribution (and it does), what you're showing is that it does not correlate to population density.

[Linkedblade]

So the most shootings occur where the most people and, thus, the most potential offenders are.

If your distribution lines up with population distribution (and it does), what you're showing is that it does not correlate to population density.

If gun control worked, it would not correlate to population distribution. In fact it would correlate to where less gun control measures are taken. QED.

[Breccia]

If gun control worked, it would not correlate to population distribution. In fact it would correlate to where less gun control measures are taken. QED.

It does.

[s_bushido]

It does.

Awkward.

But I guess that's what happens when he's out here pretending the raw numbers tell the whole story. Same shit happens when people like this point to the number of crimes/deaths/etc in Chicago (because it's always Chicago...) without taking literally anything else into account.

[Endus]

If gun control worked, it would not correlate to population distribution. In fact it would correlate to where less gun control measures are taken. QED.

It does.

Womp womp.

Why do anti-gun-control advocates always forget about population numbers? It's like when they pretend Chicago is some murder capital, when it doesn't even come anywhere close to the Top 10; https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/mur...u-s-cities/36/

The most dangerous cities, of course, falling generally into the darker regions on the map Breccia linked, for similar reasons.

You'll also find that you get population densities outside the USA, in countries with much stronger gun control laws, and much lower firearm attack and homicide figures in those same dense locations, further debunking the issue on an international scale and going beyond just the American context.

Gun control does work, it obviously works, and you've really gotta wonder why some people are trying to prop up murder rates in the USA.

[Breccia]

Why do anti-gun-control advocates always forget about population numbers?

Because they live in flyover states, with the population of one NYC block.

[Linkedblade]

Womp womp.

Why do anti-gun-control advocates always forget about population numbers? It's like when they pretend Chicago is some murder capital, when it doesn't even come anywhere close to the Top 10; https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/mur...u-s-cities/36/

The most dangerous cities, of course, falling generally into the darker regions on the map Breccia linked, for similar reasons.

You'll also find that you get population densities outside the USA, in countries with much stronger gun control laws, and much lower firearm attack and homicide figures in those same dense locations, further debunking the issue on an international scale and going beyond just the American context.

Gun control does work, it obviously works, and you've really gotta wonder why some people are trying to prop up murder rates in the USA.

The chart doesnt prove my point wrong. That chart shows gun deaths, not murder, proportional to population, not locations of mass shootings.

[downnola]

Thanks for YOUR excuse, can't say I care much for it. What have you done specifically except vote democrat? nothing? then you have no right to complain. You're part of the problem.

A filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
A majority in the House.
A willing President ready to sign the legislation.
A Supreme Court that won't strike down said legislation as unconstitutional.
A possible amendment to the constitution.
State Governments that won't pass laws to circumvent laws passed at the federal level.

That's what you need to pass legislation with enough power to put a fucking dent in these kinds of massacres. Democrats are shit out of luck on 4 out of 6 of those list items.

If you're not actively supporting and voting for Democrats at every level to replace Republican goons, who would block the slightest attempt to regulate the sale of guns, then your "both sides" horse shit of a scolding post is just a performative act. If a fucking classroom of dead children won't change the minds of Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham then protesting in D.C. with a bunch of platitudes on placards isn't going to get them to budge either.

Stop fucking whining and vote against your enemy already. Fucking christ.

[Endus]

The chart doesnt prove my point wrong. That chart shows gun deaths, not murder, proportional to population, not locations of mass shootings.

And yet, you've still provided a grand total of "jack shit" to back up anything you've argued. The one map you linked didn't control for population which made it absolutely useless for making the case you thought it would.

If you post any map of anything, from "potatoes eaten" to "bars of soap used" and exclude the per-capita figures, it'll create a density map that looks a lot like the "mass shootings" one you linked. Because that's just showing population density. If you want to argue a difference per capita, you need data that actually controls for population density.

[Masark]

If you post any map of anything, from "potatoes eaten" to "bars of soap used" and exclude the per-capita figures, it'll create a density map that looks a lot like the "mass shootings" one you linked. Because that's just showing population density. If you want to argue a difference per capita, you need data that actually controls for population density.

[Linkedblade]

And yet, you've still provided a grand total of "jack shit" to back up anything you've argued. The one map you linked didn't control for population which made it absolutely useless for making the case you thought it would.

If you post any map of anything, from "potatoes eaten" to "bars of soap used" and exclude the per-capita figures, it'll create a density map that looks a lot like the "mass shootings" one you linked. Because that's just showing population density. If you want to argue a difference per capita, you need data that actually controls for population density.

You don't provide "jack shit" either. If gun control worked, there would be evidence of such. There isn't.

Like I said if gun control worked, Then there would be a difference between states with "high" gun control and "low" gun control. That's not the case. California has similar gun homicide per capita as Texas. Colorado similar to New Jersey. The GVA includes all cases of firearm related death, not only homicide. So here's my data. And those numbers are from the CDC.

[Breccia]

The chart doesnt prove my point wrong. That chart shows gun deaths, not murder, proportional to population, not locations of mass shootings.

Okay. Here's murders.



Wow, those two maps look awfully similar.

Now say you're sorry.