Bloomberg’s “grassroots” gun control group: There have been 74 school shootings since Newtown

posted at 3:01 pm on June 11, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

After the failure of his Mayors Against Illegal Guns group to sway public opinion in favor of more gun control, Michael Bloomberg announced earlier this year that he would be funneling at least $50 million to a new, “grassroots” organization now called Everytown For Gun Safety with the hope of “outmuscling” that scourge of civilized society, the National Rifle Association, and their ill-begotten political influence (because of, you know, their five million official members and millions more sympathizers). In what is only Everytown’s latest display of choosing deliberate exaggerations, lies, and scare tactics over honest conversation, the group recently updated their running list claiming that there have now been at least 74 school shootings just since the massacre at Newtown in December of 2012, which a HuffPo editor then helpfully mapped out:

Here’s the Washington Post‘s version, too. Any school shooting is an unacceptable tragedy for which we should be looking for practical, effective solutions, and an average of more than one school shooting every week is all the more eye-poppingly horrifying. It sounds like we have an outright epidemic on our hands — but, have there really been 74 “school shootings” in just eighteen months? Charles C. Johnsen, a.k.a. @ChuckCJohnson on the Twitters, took a closer look at the various crimes that Everytown has been lumping into its list, and unsurprisingly, quite a few are undeserving of the designation of a “school shooting.” Here’s a sampling of some of his research:

And on, and on, and on, until…

It certainly seems like suicides and gang violence should be delineated from “school shootings” (in which the “mass” is pretty much implied) as separate problems, no? Unless, of course, your real goal is to falsely portray an America in which wildly violent, deadly, and indiscriminate gun violence is increasing — rather than the actual trend in which it has for two decades been sharply decreasing.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Maybe not but if there was another option it still looks awfully bad from a moral perspective.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Liberals are hardly ones to lecture on morals.

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:00 PM

In 2011 for instance if you look at all cases of murder knives (1,694) are a distant second to guns (8,583).
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM

 
+1, and those 8583 guns deaths caused by 37% of the population are almost identical to the 8369 AIDS deaths caused by a miniscule <1/2 of 1% of the population.
 

That leaves 12 instances in just one year of accidental or intentional deaths in schools. To say nothing of the injuries, near misses, trauma, and property damage.
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 7:37 PM

 
12? And that’s not even counting injuries, near misses, and trauma?
 

1 in 4 new HIV infections occurs in youth ages 13 to 24 years
 
About 12,000 youth were infected with HIV in 2010. The greatest number of infections occurred among gay and bisexual youth. Nearly half of all new infections among youth occur in African American males.
 
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/HIVAmongYouth/

 
You support restrictions on this population’s rights and movements until they manage to be at least as safe as gun owners, correct?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Yeah I’m the one having a hard time with concepts.

So what’s the distinction between small groups and en masse?

And since I’m such an idiot can you tell me what an “assault rifle” is?

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Now you want me to explain numbers to you?
I’m sorry gwelf but if you are going to choose to regress to a preschool level I am not going to enable you.
Let me know when you master the concepts of more and less.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:00 PM

+1, and those 8583 guns deaths caused by 37% of the population are almost identical to the 8369 AIDS deaths caused by a miniscule <1/2 of 1% of the population.

Roger, pretending AIDS is a gay only disease is an automatic argument loser. Seriously, did you sleep through the entire 90s?

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Now you want me to explain numbers to you?
I’m sorry gwelf but if you are going to choose to regress to a preschool level I am not going to enable you.
Let me know when you master the concepts of more and less.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Ha ha ha.

You have a very strange reaction to your points being demolished.

You’re the one claiming that rifles are en masse murder machines but hand guns are simply small group murder machines. That seems like a weird and very amorphous distinction for someone arguing from your position.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:04 PM

I really despise both of these organizations (Everytown and the NRA). Both use awful, hyperbolic rhetoric. Both spread flat out lies and misinformation. If you ask me, people shouldn’t associate with either.

beverlyfreaks on June 11, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Give me one example of any lie the NRA has spread, just one. And not just something you disagree with, an actual lie.

Johnnyreb on June 11, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Feudalism fell apart in large part due to the gutenberg press making education much more widely available. Gunpowder had little to do with it (crossbows and longbows having already pretty well invalidated the armored knight as the battlefield powerhouse).

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Wrong.

Even though the printing press was invented literacy was still the province of the elite. It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that paper and books became available to all the classes in a society.

itsspideyman on June 11, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Got it, you are so agenda driven you are unable either to think rationally or critically to analyze any data as it might alter your preconceptions. As a result the cop shot by Tsarnev and a domestic dispute somewhere in the vicinity of a school are the same as Adam Lanza.

F X Muldoon on June 11, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Same? No. Both school shootings? Hell yes.

Again this isn’t hard, all you have to do is parse two common English words: school shooting

It does what it says on the box, as they say. The name tells you all you need to know.

say it with me: school shooting.

good. Now stop pretending to not get the concept and deal with the results of your chosen policy.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Tlaloc makes a good point though. Rifles are only en masse murder machines so obviously the police don’t need them. We don’t want them murdering people.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:07 PM

You’re the one claiming that rifles are en masse murder machines but hand guns are simply small group murder machines. That seems like a weird and very amorphous distinction for someone arguing from your position.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:04 PM

You can add ammo capacity to the list of things I am not going to patiently explain to you, especially since you just admitted that you don’t understand > and <.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM

+1, and those 8583 guns deaths caused by 37% of the population are almost identical to the 8369 AIDS deaths caused by a miniscule <1/2 of 1% of the population.

 
Roger, pretending AIDS is a gay only disease is an automatic argument loser. Seriously, did you sleep through the entire 90s?
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM

 
Clearly that’s why I named gays specifically and not people with HIV.
 
I’m not going to enable you. Let us know when you understand what is actually written and not what you think you’ve read.
 
Now, do you support of restricting HIV/AIDS carriers rights and movements in order to reduce the deaths and injuries?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Wrong.

Even though the printing press was invented literacy was still the province of the elite. It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that paper and books became available to all the classes in a society.

itsspideyman on June 11, 2014 at 8:04 PM

No it really had a lot to do with it. You are right that literacy didn’t suddenly spring up among the peasants, it took time, but as it did the feudal system became untenable and fell apart. The rise in power of the merchant class and decline of the church both played roles as well. We can quibble over which part was the biggest role but one thing is really obvious: guns had essentially no role.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Same? No. Both school shootings? Hell yes.

Again this isn’t hard, all you have to do is parse two common English words: school shooting

It does what it says on the box, as they say. The name tells you all you need to know.

say it with me: school shooting.

good. Now stop pretending to not get the concept and deal with the results of your chosen policy.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:06 PM

You’re being obtuse and you know it.

The media isn’t producing headlines to be accurate and anodyne and just telling the facts, man. The headline is meant to conjure up Sandy Hook and other such incidents. This is obvious. This is undeniable. The whole point of “74 School Shootings!!!!!!1!!!” is to make people think we’ve had 74 Sandy Hooks since Sandy Hook.

You really want to pretend that when these headlines come out the media and the readers are all in agreement we’re also talking about a suicide in the parking lot and something that happens behind the school at night?

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:11 PM

almost identical to the 8369 AIDS deaths caused by a miniscule <1/2 of 1% of the population.

 
Roger, pretending AIDS is a gay only disease is an automatic argument loser. Seriously, did you sleep through the entire 90s?
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM

 
Actually, this is a very interesting post.
 
What percent of the population did you think had HIV/AIDS, Tlaloc? You thought it was much, much higher, right?
 
That’s where your gay assumption came from, wasn’t it?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:12 PM

You can add ammo capacity to the list of things I am not going to patiently explain to you, especially since you just admitted that you don’t understand > and <.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Oh, so a rifle that carries 14 bullets is out but a handgun which carries 17 is in? Why is 14 round capacity rifle a en masse murder machine but a 17 round handgun merely a small group murder machine?

Please, why don’t you explain ammo capacity to me.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM

We all know Democrats (and Bloomberg is more Democrat than he is Republican) are willing to lie, cheat and deceive to win their points. This is no different. If you watch the tactics of the Climate change groups and watch the tactics of the gun stealer groups, they’re basically the same.

bflat879 on June 11, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Clearly that’s why I named gays specifically and not people with HIV.

I’m not going to enable you. Let us know when you understand what is actually written and not what you think you’ve read.

Now, do you support of restricting HIV/AIDS carriers rights and movements in order to reduce the deaths and injuries?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Maybe I misunderstood you, I thought your 1/2 of 1% comment was referring to gays, if not then I apologize for mischaracterizing your point.

I certainly support restricting HIV patients from organ donations, blood donations. Beyond that, no of course not. They are still human beings. Guns are just things. Things you don’t actually need, no matter how severe your inferiority complex.

The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. At the time it was written citizen militias were still effective military forces in national scale battles. Today they aren’t. They aren’t even close. The lesson of ruby ridge is a bunch of yahoos with guns who think they are bad@sses are actually nothing more than roadbumps to a paramiitary police force. They wouldn’t have even been that to an actual military unit.

No amount of guns will help you resist government aggression. That ship has sailed. Look at Iraq, the insurgents were very effective with IEDs. With guns? Not so much. Every stand up firefight they got creamed by a military designed to kill people in a stand up firefight.

If you really want to be armed against hypothetical government aggression you are a lot better off with soap flakes than a gun. The guy carrying a rifle is a target, the guy carrying the fixings for napalm just looks like a guy out shopping.

Your other option is to learn to hack. That makes you an actual threat to the government. Your splatterguns in your pickup just make you a rube.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Same? No. Both school shootings? Hell yes.

Again this isn’t hard, all you have to do is parse two common English words: school shooting

It does what it says on the box, as they say. The name tells you all you need to know.

say it with me: school shooting.

good. Now stop pretending to not get the concept and deal with the results of your chosen policy.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Yeah, all “school shootings” are exactly the same and will all be fixed by the exact same policy. So the new gun policy that stops someone from shooting up a school will also stop someone from committing suicide in the parking lot and stop adults from killing each other behind the school at night too. Because that’s why the headline is not misleading. All these disparate situations that fall under “school shootings” can be fixed by the very same policy. It’s amazing.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

I say put alcohol inhibitors in every single car and truck in America and it will save 20,000+ lives a year and way more than 74 of those would be Alcohol fueled deaths of children which occur in School Zones each year.

Hands down it is for the children and remember, if it only saves one life. Blow above .05 and you cant drive. Why isn’t the Left focusing on that instead of something that is like actually a right (#2 on the Bill of Rights) listed in the US Constitution?

Johnnyreb on June 11, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Guns are just things. Things which help people protect themselves against criminals. Like women who could use a decisive advantage over a male attacker. But it’s anachronistic, right? Except for all the people’s lives it saves. They don’t matter.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:22 PM

You really want to pretend that when these headlines come out the media and the readers are all in agreement we’re also talking about a suicide in the parking lot and something that happens behind the school at night?

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:11 PM

I just want you to acknowledge the plain truth that school shooting means school shooting. What people infer from the term is frankly way above your pay grade to deduce.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:23 PM

No amount of guns will help you resist government aggression. That ship has sailed. Look at Iraq, the insurgents were very effective with IEDs. With guns? Not so much. Every stand up firefight they got creamed by a military designed to kill people in a stand up firefight.

If you really want to be armed against hypothetical government aggression you are a lot better off with soap flakes than a gun. The guy carrying a rifle is a target, the guy carrying the fixings for napalm just looks like a guy out shopping.

Your other option is to learn to hack. That makes you an actual threat to the government. Your splatterguns in your pickup just make you a rube.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Of course if it came down to it we wouldn’t use a combination of weapons and tactics… right?

Same? No. Both school shootings? Hell yes.

Again this isn’t hard, all you have to do is parse two common English words: school shooting

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:06 PM

You know what they’re up to dimwit. BTW aren’t most schools gun free zones. What a great policy you have. BTW I don’t think we’ve met. GFY, and smd.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:23 PM

The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. At the time it was written citizen militias were still effective military forces in national scale battles. Today they aren’t. They aren’t even close. The lesson of ruby ridge is a bunch of yahoos with guns who think they are bad@sses are actually nothing more than roadbumps to a paramiitary police force. They wouldn’t have even been that to an actual military unit.

No amount of guns will help you resist government aggression. That ship has sailed. Look at Iraq, the insurgents were very effective with IEDs. With guns? Not so much. Every stand up firefight they got creamed by a military designed to kill people in a stand up firefight.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Great point. So glad you’ve come around and agree that citizens should be able to get “military” hardware as well. If it’s good enough for the police it’s good enough for the common citizen too.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:24 PM

I just want you to acknowledge the plain truth

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:23 PM

You’re acting like a little kid.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:24 PM

We all know Democrats (and Bloomberg is more Democrat than he is Republican) are willing to lie, cheat and deceive to win their points. This is no different. If you watch the tactics of the Climate change groups and watch the tactics of the gun stealer groups, they’re basically the same.

bflat879 on June 11, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Funny that you say this in an article where the gun control proponent was perfectly accurate and the gun nut was lying through his teeth to obfuscate the issue.

it’s almost like you weren’t paying attention.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:24 PM

We all know Democrats (and Bloomberg is more Democrat than he is Republican) are willing to lie, cheat and deceive to win their points. This is no different. If you watch the tactics of the Climate change groups and watch the tactics of the gun stealer groups, they’re basically the same.

bflat879 on June 11, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Bloomberg was never a republican. He only became one when he lost the NYC primary to Carl McCall.

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Luckily the SCOTUS thinks differently than the statist Tialoc.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:25 PM

I just want you to acknowledge the plain truth that school shooting means school shooting. What people infer from the term is frankly way above your pay grade to deduce.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Yup, keep dodging the obvious. Each time you do it you come across ads a disingenuous hack.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Now, do you support of restricting HIV/AIDS carriers rights and movements in order to reduce the deaths and injuries?
 
rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM

 
I certainly support restricting HIV patients from organ donations, blood donations. Beyond that, no of course not. They are still human beings. Guns are just things. Things you don’t actually need, no matter how severe your inferiority complex.
 
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism…
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

 
Good thing no one is discussing things vs. humans and instead we were discussing rights. You know, like what I’d written. And what you said about the 2nd Amendment.
 
So you’re not really concerned about accidental or intentional deaths in schools or other places, to say nothing of the injuries, near misses, trauma, and property damage, then?
 
It’s simply something about a gun complex instead? Am I understanding your concern correctly?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

No amount of guns will help you resist government aggression fight.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Get some new material . Nothing original in your stupidity.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Guns are just things. Things which help people protect themselves against criminals. Like women who could use a decisive advantage over a male attacker. But it’s anachronistic, right? Except for all the people’s lives it saves. They don’t matter.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:22 PM

The constitution doesn’t guarantee you a gun for self defense, which you really should know.

You know what disables an attacker just fine? A taser. Or an electrolaser, or mace, or any of a dozen of non-lethal weapons. And hey, when your kid accidentally tases themself at least they’re probably going to live, unlike with a gun. Or if you accidentally shoot an innocent you most likely haven’t killed them.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Good thing no one is discussing things vs. humans and instead we were discussing rights. …..

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

You know these libs and their logical fallacies. They’d have little without them.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Get some new material . Nothing original in your stupidity.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Awww, did the facts make you have a sad?

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

BTW
 
1 million people in the U.S. have HIV/AIDS, and they are responsible for 8369 deaths.
 
116 million people in the U.S. have access to guns, and, as Tlaloc noted, they are responsible for 8583 deaths.
 
Can someone tell us which group is safer, please?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:29 PM

You know what disables an attacker just fine? A taser. Or an electrolaser, or mace, or any of a dozen of non-lethal weapons. …

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

You’re ignorance of reality is massive.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:29 PM

The constitution doesn’t guarantee you a gun for self defense, which you really should know.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

The Constitution certainly does guarantee life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. Seems to be silent on the tools I may use.

F-
(Sorry Del. I stole your grading system)

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Again this isn’t hard, all you have to do is parse two common English words: school shooting

To you and your similarly flaccid thinkers the word “school” is a totem. The only reason you want a rigid definition (unusual for you and the po-mo crowd, of “school shooting”, is that it lets you just blame another of your totems (guns), and frees you from having actually to think about and analyze the problem, and to fix the fundamental underlying problems.

F X Muldoon on June 11, 2014 at 8:31 PM

No it really had a lot to do with it. The rise in power of the merchant class and decline of the church both played roles as well. We can quibble over which part was the biggest role but one thing is really obvious: guns had essentially no role.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:10 PM

No, literacy had no role in the end of feudalism. You are right that guns didn’t play a part but literacy did not. It was:

`1 – The Black Death. The loss of 1/3 of all the workers in Europe made labor more valuable.

2 – The rise of trade in towns, merchantilism, and the Crusades that brought trade (so you could say war brought about the end).

3 – The Peasants Revolt – Peasants realized their worth and demanded changes. No guns, but resistance.

4 – Nobles had to start paying armies instead of demanding fealty.

5 – The rise of a centralized government.

And like everything, it was a mix of other minor things.

itsspideyman on June 11, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Awww, did the facts make you have a sad?

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Sure bothered you that I pointed out you’re simply spewing talking points. I love your type. What a hoot. You think you’re so intelligent yet your level of comprehension leaves you to repeating lines you read at HUFFPO or the DU. Thanks for proving my point…over and over.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM

So you’re not really concerned about accidental or intentional deaths in schools or other places, to say nothing of the injuries, near misses, trauma, and property damage, then?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

How do you reach that conclusion?

Luckily the SCOTUS thinks differently than the statist Tialoc.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Yes your hobby is perfectly safe, unlike, say, everyone around you.

It’s funny how that kind of puts your complete misanthropy in stark relief. You value your hobby far more than the lives of people. No matter how many lives would be saved you would never consider giving up that piece of metal huh? Your own kids, hell even your own life is completely valueless compared to being able to think yourself a bad@ss.

I gotta say, we’re all super impressed by that.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Tialoc sounds like a child stamping his feet….

“it says “school shooting”…why don’t you guys just be like me: simplistic and afraid of the complex”.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Rather, it seems to be silent except where that 2nd Amendment is concerned. Every Amendment is a personal freedom except the Second somehow. According to Tlaloc and other libtards.

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Tlaloc

thatsafactjack on June 11, 2014 at 8:34 PM

The constitution doesn’t guarantee you a gun for self defense, which you really should know.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

But does the constitution give you the right to protect yourself.

Fine, what if a person is intent upon killing you, like this so-called list of “school killings” (what a laugh, making up definitions as they go along). Do you have the right to use lethal force to save yourself or your family?

itsspideyman on June 11, 2014 at 8:34 PM

You know what disables an attacker just fine? A taser. Or an electrolaser, or mace, or any of a dozen of non-lethal weapons. …

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Ha ha ha. What a joke. And you can also pee on your rapist too!

Don’t worry women, Tlaloc has you covered!

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:35 PM

I gotta say, we’re all super impressed by that.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Which hobby would that be?

Dude, you’re as immature as one can get. You really have so little.

Again, luckily the big thinkers know more than you. SCOTUS shoots you down about every chance they get.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Yes your hobby is perfectly safe, unlike, say, everyone around you.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Ready to give up your car? Your knives? Say you start in Chicago and LA then get back to me. Clean up your own backyard child.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:37 PM

So you’re not really concerned about accidental or intentional deaths in schools or other places, to say nothing of the injuries, near misses, trauma, and property damage, then?
 
rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

 
How do you reach that conclusion?
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM

 
I’m guessing it’s the part where you told us AIDS deaths and HIV injuries weren’t deathy and injuryie enough to do restrict their rights in order to do anything about them.
 

Now, do you support of restricting HIV/AIDS carriers rights and movements in order to reduce the deaths and injuries?
 
rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM

 
I certainly support restricting HIV patients from organ donations, blood donations. Beyond that, no of course not. They are still human beings…
 
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism…
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:37 PM

People who come to these threads, foam flecked, spewing hatred at all and sundry simply because they disagree with them on some issue of policy or some philosophical point, particularly if they know before hand that the entire site is based on a political ideology that is opposed to their own, are called…trolls.

thatsafactjack on June 11, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Good thing no one is discussing things vs. humans and instead we were discussing rights. …..

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Notice how the childish troll avoids that…like the plague. Nothing like a little truth for the roaches to hide.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:38 PM

It’s funny how that kind of puts your complete misanthropy in stark relief. You value your hobby far more than the lives of people. No matter how many lives would be saved you would never consider giving up that piece of metal huh? Your own kids, hell even your own life is completely valueless compared to being able to think yourself a bad@ss.

I gotta say, we’re all super impressed by that.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM

You clearly know a lot of gun owners.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:40 PM

I certainly support restricting HIV patients from organ donations, blood donations. Beyond that, no of course not. They are still human beings…

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

You’re so brainwashed. No doubt you went to some very liberal high school. If you go to community college try something a little less liberal and learn to think .

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:40 PM

So there’s nothing to fear about a gun shooting if no one is killed?

libfreeordie on June 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM

That wasn’t the claim. Don’t argue dishonestly. The model for comparison is Newtown; it is the image deliberately invoked by the gun-control advocates, and the claim is that we need to stop people from coming into our schools and mow down students in a hail of bullets.

In over half of these incidents, there are no fatalities at all. In many others, it is just that a person happened to decide to kill themselves on what is technically school property, including a parking lot after-hours with no one around. In several, no one is even injured.

With Newtown, the problem to solve is obvious: what steps do we take so that our children are not killed in tragic clusters at their place of learning? For some of these instances, what problem exactly are you looking to solve: how do we protect people who are not students from being in a parking lot at night when shots are fired but no one is injured? What good, exactly, are you trying to do there?

The Schaef on June 11, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Now, do you support of restricting HIV/AIDS carriers rights and movements in order to reduce the deaths and injuries?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM

I certainly support restricting HIV patients from organ donations, blood donations. Beyond that, no of course not. They are still human beings…

The 2nd amendment is an anachronism…

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Too much…the roach is just a roach.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:41 PM

The Constitution certainly does guarantee life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. Seems to be silent on the tools I may use.

F-
(Sorry Del. I stole your grading system)

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:31 PM

*facepalm*

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is nowhere in the constitution or the bill of rights. It’s in the declaration of independence, a document with no force of law.

That F- is apparently your civics grade.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM

libfreeordie on June 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM

That wasn’t the claim. Don’t argue dishonestly.

The Schaef on June 11, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Libfree cannot help itself.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM

It’s amusing watching Tlaloc lecture us on sticking with the facts while he/she engages in gross lefty stereotypes completely unfounded in facts. It’s almost like Tlaloc has no idea what they’re talking about.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM

You clearly know a lot of gun owners.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:40 PM

I prefer to associate with adults.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Riddle me this, Tlaloc — what should be done to stop it?

If you support confiscation, please lead with that.

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM

You know what disables an attacker just fine? A taser. Or an electrolaser, or mace, or any of a dozen of non-lethal weapons. …

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Great argument. So the police must not need guns either, right?

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM

I prefer to associate with adults.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Very amusing. I’m sure you do but I doubt they let you leave the little kids table very often. You can’t be trusted with a knife or fork.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014

You’re so clearly a loser. How sad. Later sweety.

CW on June 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Which would be relevant if they had said mass shootings. Weird how when you unilaterally give yourself the right to change the other guy’s argument you usually end up winning.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Newtown is the example. When people say “school shootings”, they’re typically referring to Newtown (specifically named by the advocates in the article), or Columbine, or Paducah. The vetters are not the one who set this standard; don’t criticize them for playing by the rhetorical rules set by the authors.

Unless you’re arguing that it is critical that we stop people from getting “assault weapons” with “high-capacity magazines” in order to stop them from firing a couple shots in a parking lot after dark and injuring no one. Is that really the tragedy you hope to avert?

The Schaef on June 11, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I prefer to associate with adults.

So you do know gun owners.

F X Muldoon on June 11, 2014 at 8:46 PM

I’m guessing it’s the part where you told us AIDS deaths and HIV injuries weren’t deathy and injuryie enough to do restrict their rights in order to do anything about them.

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:37 PM

You really think you can draw a parallel between a person afflicted with an incurable condition and a person choosing to own a weapon?

Did the HIV patient choose to get sick? Are they likely to kill someone around them? Do we have serial HIV infectors going on infection sprees constantly?

No?

Then, yeah, your attempted metaphor never really made any headway.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Great argument. So the police must not need guns either, right?

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Ultimately, no. But you have to remove guns from the criminals first before that works.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM

So you’re not really concerned about accidental or intentional deaths in schools or other places, to say nothing of the injuries, near misses, trauma, and property damage, then?
 
It’s simply something about a gun complex instead? Am I understanding your concern correctly?
 
rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM

 

You clearly know a lot of gun owners.
 
gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:40 PM

 
I prefer to associate with adults.
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM

 
And we get our answer.

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Tlaloc — what should be done to stop it?

If you support confiscation, please lead with that.

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Riddle me this, Tlaloc — what should be done to stop it?

If you support confiscation, please lead with that.

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Lets start with getting you guys to acknowledge reality then we can move to a solution space.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is nowhere in the constitution or the bill of rights. It’s in the declaration of independence, a document with no force of law.

That F- is apparently your civics grade.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Part of me knew that after I hit “enter”.
However, you are splitting hairs. It’s still a founding document and has the same force as the Madison Papers. Had it been in the Constitution you’d have found some other nimrod excuse for attempting discrediting it. But congratulations on getting one up on the Judge. Any argument I have from this point on has been negated.

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Lets start with getting you guys to acknowledge reality then we can move to a solution space.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Suddenly short of answers?

Why does it matter what we think? You must have a solution.

Please share.

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 8:52 PM

You really think you can draw a parallel between a person afflicted with an incurable condition and a person choosing to own a weapon?

Did the HIV patient choose to get sick? Are they likely to kill someone around them? Do we have serial HIV infectors going on infection sprees constantly?

No?

Then, yeah, your attempted metaphor never really made any headway.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Uh, the point is that those people with HIV result in further infections resulting in further deaths. Just as many gun deaths.

You are the one arguing for a public policy that restricts rights and freedoms to save lives. But apparently the mode of death is for some odd reason super important to you. These HIV carriers are free to kill someone while others are not. And the metaphor is apt – people choose to own guns (and you glibly ignore the fact that nearly all gun related murders are committed with illegal arms) but HIV infected people choose to keep engaging in risky behaviors which infect others.

Why do you have a really hard time seeing the parallel that you want to restrict the choices of a gun owner to stop people from dying but don’t want to restrict the choices of someone with HIV to stop people from dying.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:52 PM

I’m guessing it’s the part where you told us AIDS deaths and HIV injuries weren’t deathy and injuryie enough to do restrict their rights in order to do anything about them.
 
rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:37 PM

 
You really think you can draw a parallel between a person afflicted with an incurable condition and a person choosing to own a weapon?
 
Did the HIV patient choose to get sick? Are they likely to kill someone around them? Do we have serial HIV infectors going on infection sprees constantly?
 
No?
 
Then, yeah, your attempted metaphor never really made any headway.
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:47 PM

 
What metaphor? Do you think AIDS deaths are metaphorically more pleasant on the dying person? Is their dying less traumatic for their friends and family?
 
Do 8000 people die from AIDS each year?
 
Do HIV/AIDS carriers pose a public health risk to at least 50K people each year?
 
Will restricting their rights reduce the 8000 deaths and 50,000 injuries each year?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:53 PM

And we get our answer.

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM

I get it, you just don’t care how many people are killed or maimed every year. You don’t care how many are children. It just doesn’t matter to you.

What I don’t get is why you think this is a trait we should value, rather than one that is sociopathic.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:53 PM

I get it, you just don’t care how many people are killed or maimed every year. You don’t care how many are children. It just doesn’t matter to you.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Then what should be done about it?

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Ultimately, no. But you have to remove guns from the criminals first before that works.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Oh, so the police need guns to deal with criminals but the woman crossing campus doesn’t against a would-be rapist? Brilliant.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Part of me knew that after I hit “enter”.
However, you are splitting hairs. It’s still a founding document and has the same force as the Madison Papers. Had it been in the Constitution you’d have found some other nimrod excuse for attempting discrediting it. But congratulations on getting one up on the Judge. Any argument I have from this point on has been negated.

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:51 PM

Yes it does have the same weight as the madison papers, which is to say absolutely none. There’s the law, then there’s what some guys may have thought about it two centuries ago. One of these is relevant to modern life, the other is a historical curiosity only.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:55 PM

They were shootings, not knowing how the person got the gun doesn’t change either of the two key ingredients of a school shooting, namely:
1) a school, AND
2) a shooting

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Okay, then, how do you define a school shooting? You set the rules by which the rest of us should abide, and we’ll see who’s being reasonable and what are the results. I’ll warn you to mind how you answer, because inherent in this definition is the reason that a school shooting is something more strongly to be avoided than your regular everyday gangland drive-by.

How many of the knifing victims die as compared to the gunshot victims.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 7:27 PM

In Santa Barbara, the same number.

Assault rifles only exist to murder humans en masse.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 7:42 PM

In what way is an assault rifle more exclusively built for this purpose than a handgun? Please provide specifics.

The Schaef on June 11, 2014 at 8:55 PM

I get it, you just don’t care how many people are killed or maimed every year. You don’t care how many are children. It just doesn’t matter to you.
 
What I don’t get is why you think this is a trait we should value, rather than one that is sociopathic.
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:53 PM

 
Ha.
 
Let’s stick with that, though. So what do you suggest we do about the <1/2 of 1% of the population with HIV killing as many people as the 37% with guns?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Did the HIV patient choose to get sick? Are they likely to kill someone around them? Do we have serial HIV infectors going on infection sprees constantly?

Apparently so.

So it seems.

F X Muldoon on June 11, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Why do you have a really hard time seeing the parallel that you want to restrict the choices of a gun owner to stop people from dying but don’t want to restrict the choices of someone with HIV to stop people from dying.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Because that argument is, to be blunt, idiotic. An HIV patient is suffering an affliction, an incurable affliction. The only way you could really ensure absolutely no risk of them spreading the disease would be to kill them and incinerate their remains,.

The gun nut can disarm anytime with no harm.

So yeah the supposed relationship between these two scenarios is not exactly rock solid.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM

I get it, you just don’t care how many people are killed or maimed every year. You don’t care how many are children. It just doesn’t matter to you.

What I don’t get is why you think this is a trait we should value, rather than one that is sociopathic.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Derp.

And you obviously don’t care about all the lives saved by people being able to defend themselves with firearms every year.

But it’s touching that you’re going to let people use pepper spray and tasers against multiple home invaders.

And why do you keep dodging rogerb? You look like a fool when you don’t. If the point is saving lives then death by guns should be way down on your list.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Yes it does have the same weight as the madison papers, which is to say absolutely none. There’s the law, then there’s what some guys may have thought about it two centuries ago. One of these is relevant to modern life, the other is a historical curiosity only.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Yep. How dare those Supreme Court Justices use them to decide what may or may not be the Framers’ intent.

But don’t worry. There’s a libtard Justice or two using European law as a means to render. Sit down, son. You’re an embarrassment.

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM

The gun nut can disarm anytime with no harm.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Is THAT your “solution?”

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Then what should be done about it?

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Wow, deja vu…

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Because that argument is, to be blunt, idiotic. An HIV patient is suffering an affliction, an incurable affliction. The only way you could really ensure absolutely no risk of them spreading the disease would be to kill them and incinerate their remains,.
 
The gun nut can disarm anytime with no harm.
 
So yeah the supposed relationship between these two scenarios is not exactly rock solid.
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM

 
I like it when you make stuff up like that. It’s like your gay position earlier. You don’t know what you’ve actually read, only what you think you’ve read.
 
But let’s go with it. You support restrictions on this 1/2 of 1% population’s rights and movements to reduce the deaths and injuries they cause by 25%, correct?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Because that argument is, to be blunt, idiotic. An HIV patient is suffering an affliction, an incurable affliction. The only way you could really ensure absolutely no risk of them spreading the disease would be to kill them and incinerate their remains,.

The gun nut can disarm anytime with no harm.

So yeah the supposed relationship between these two scenarios is not exactly rock solid.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:58 PM

So how do you plan on keeping guns out of the hand of criminals?
Just like the only way to make sure that someone with HIV won’t spread the virus is to kill them the only way to make sure criminals don’t get guns is to kill all of them.

And you still have no credible answer for people using guns on a daily basis to defend themselves. To you it’s all gun nuts and murderers. Grow up.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 9:02 PM

The Schaef on June 11, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Schaef I’m not going to repeat the last two pages of arguments just for you. Go read them if you care.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Wow, deja vu…

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:01 PM

You seem to have all the answers to the other posters. Even if we are all “wrong” on the issue.

What is your solution?

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 9:03 PM

But let’s go with it. You support restrictions on this 1/2 of 1% population’s rights and movements to reduce the deaths and injuries they cause by 25%, correct?

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 9:02 PM

I told you exactly what restrictions I’d support. You keep digging in this hole but trust me you aren’t actually getting out.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Schaef I’m not going to repeat the last two pages of arguments just for you. Go read them if you care.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:03 PM

You’ve been making arguments?

Lets see, take all the guns away and no gun deaths.

Wow, brilliant!

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 9:06 PM

I get it, you just don’t care how many people are killed or maimed every year. You don’t care how many are children. It just doesn’t matter to you.
 
What I don’t get is why you think this is a trait we should value, rather than one that is sociopathic.
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:53 PM

 
But let’s go with it. You support restrictions on this 1/2 of 1% population’s rights and movements to reduce the deaths and injuries they cause by 25%, correct?
 
rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 9:02 PM

 
I told you exactly what restrictions I’d support. You keep digging in this hole but trust me you aren’t actually getting out.
 
Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:04 PM

 
So you’re either sociopathic or completely misunderstand holes.

rogerb on June 11, 2014 at 9:06 PM

So how do you plan on keeping guns out of the hand of criminals?
Just like the only way to make sure that someone with HIV won’t spread the virus is to kill them the only way to make sure criminals don’t get guns is to kill all of them.

Yeah I mean we all know guns spontaneously occur in nature, it’s not like they have to be manufactured. Bullets magically appear in magazines, clips, cylinders…

And you still have no credible answer for people using guns on a daily basis to defend themselves. To you it’s all gun nuts and murderers. Grow up.

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 9:02 PM

You’re right I have no answer to your myth that guns save lives everyday. I can’t imagine why…

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:07 PM

You’re right I have no answer to your myth that guns save lives everyday. I can’t imagine why…

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:07 PM

So? What is your solution?

Alien on June 11, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Lets see, take all the guns away and no gun deaths.

Wow, brilliant!

gwelf on June 11, 2014 at 9:06 PM

hrrrm, that does seem to follow actually. Interesting.

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Mexico is a good example of a gun-free zone. What few guns that may be allowed, none of them can be in military calibers. Sure glad they don’t have “assault” rifles there. A lot of peasants would die every year…

Judge_Dredd on June 11, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5