Shootings and where the problem begins

SteveZee wrote:One shooting? I think you're a little out of touch. There have been 392 school shootings alone since 1992. This has been coming for quite some time.
http://www.stoptheshootings.org/
This doesn't count Aurora, Co. (movie theatre massacre) Phoenix, Az. (Congress woman Giford shot and several other's killed) etc. etc.

That's all?

That's less than one year in Obama's "hometown" of Chicago.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011 ... me-numbers

Chicago is close to ending 2011 with fewer murders than last year, which saw the lowest number of those violent crimes in nearly a half a century, according to the Police Department.

From January through Tuesday, there were 423 murders in Chicago compared to 431 through the same period last year, according to preliminary statistics released by the department.

The statistics represent a steady decline since 2008, when the city had 513 murders. A year later, that number was down to 459.

Kinda funny that you cite stats from 92 on. we took our guns to school up until the early 80's at least where you live. Do you think it had something to do with availability and those evil assault weapons?

Kevin

jpete wrote:

SteveZee wrote:One shooting? I think you're a little out of touch. There have been 392 school shootings alone since 1992. This has been coming for quite some time.
http://www.stoptheshootings.org/
This doesn't count Aurora, Co. (movie theatre massacre) Phoenix, Az. (Congress woman Giford shot and several other's killed) etc. etc.

That's all?

That's less than one year in Obama's "hometown" of Chicago.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011 ... me-numbers

Chicago is close to ending 2011 with fewer murders than last year, which saw the lowest number of those violent crimes in nearly a half a century, according to the Police Department.

From January through Tuesday, there were 423 murders in Chicago compared to 431 through the same period last year, according to preliminary statistics released by the department.

The statistics represent a steady decline since 2008, when the city had 513 murders. A year later, that number was down to 459.

I was talking about school shootings in response to a specific statement."Shootings" being the operative word.

So help me understand your rational? Since that was less than the murders in Chicago (doesn't say if a gun was used)last year, it is somehow acceptable? (You did say "that's all?") Or are you just showing us that the murder rate has declined in The President's home town steadily since he was elected in 2008?

KLook wrote:Kinda funny that you cite stats from 92 on. we took our guns to school up until the early 80's at least where you live. Do you think it had something to do with availability and those evil assault weapons?

Kevin

Um, no I don't think so. I always assumed it was because it was hunting season?

How people can pick out one thing and ignore another. So you want to talk numbers. Who's at fault for this. In 2009 the US recorded over 784,507 legal abortions. 784,507 Let the number sink in. All the children need protected and taking guns isn't going to do it.

Because the subject is shootings....................... and abortion is just redirecting and avoiding the issue. Be glad to address that in the abortion thread, which is what this one has turned into.

Yes the topic was shootings, and the same thing happened in China the same day with a knife. It's not the gun it's the person behind it . If it's not a gun it's something else. How long before a terrorist figures out our schools are easy targets. There is a problem with school security not with guns.

My point was there was NO school shootings at that time and guns are no more available then they were then.

No one is listening they are just redirecting and changing the subject.

This will serve to irritate, accusing others of the favorite Liberal tactic in the book.

LETS have a breakdown of the 392 school shootings. Location and motivation. I'll bet they are black on black and brown on brown in almost ALL the cases and in city schools. Oh, I forgot, the blacks and the browns hate each other. So probably black on brown come in. Does that make either of them racist? And they are in gun free zones and gun restricted cities, along with being to young to legally have one. Or even buy ammo.

So to answer your question directly. No, 392 school shootings in 20 years are not enough to change the Constitution or take away my ability to have a gun. Or anyone else qualified to have one. We can have a debate over who is qualified but not the basic right. There have been many studies on the teenage brain and high risk behavior, they also kill with cars. Stop all boys from driving until the age of 25 when they mature? It would save more lives then were taken in the 392 school shootings. And the stats on children being shot includes gang related violence from drop outs and criminals, lumping young people that are no more school children then the drop out clam digger with a kid and a smoking habit at age 17. Probably a kid or two also.

Kevin

Gotta go to work today, or I would hang out and banter back and forth. Have a good day all.

kevin

steve Zee, good news for you. New York state is now looking to ban all "assault weapons" .another loss of freedom and jack booted thugs knocking down your doors. you must be in your glory !

Maryland has also drawn up new bans, they are just waiting to vote them in till after the xmas break. Thats why I moved to PA a few years back.

chester wrote:steve Zee, good news for you. New York state is now looking to ban all "assault weapons" .another loss of freedom and jack booted thugs knocking down your doors. you must be in your glory !

What you guys are missing is that I NEVER called for banning anything. We are talking about REGULATING! Every time we bring up gun control or gun safety some clown comes on here and starts talking about banning when NO ONE SAID THAT. Reading is fundamental. And before you go all 2nd Amendment on me, it states a WELL REGULATED militia. R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E-D. We won't even get into the militia part.

KLook wrote:My point was there was NO school shootings at that time and guns are no more available then they were then.

No one is listening they are just redirecting and changing the subject.

This will serve to irritate, accusing others of the favorite Liberal tactic in the book.

LETS have a breakdown of the 392 school shootings. Location and motivation. I'll bet they are black on black and brown on brown in almost ALL the cases and in city schools. Oh, I forgot, the blacks and the browns hate each other. So probably black on brown come in. Does that make either of them racist? And they are in gun free zones and gun restricted cities, along with being to young to legally have one. Or even buy ammo.

So to answer your question directly. No, 392 school shootings in 20 years are not enough to change the Constitution or take away my ability to have a gun. Or anyone else qualified to have one. We can have a debate over who is qualified but not the basic right. There have been many studies on the teenage brain and high risk behavior, they also kill with cars. Stop all boys from driving until the age of 25 when they mature? It would save more lives then were taken in the 392 school shootings. And the stats on children being shot includes gang related violence from drop outs and criminals, lumping young people that are no more school children then the drop out clam digger with a kid and a smoking habit at age 17. Probably a kid or two also.


Kevin

If that's true (accusing others of "the favorite liberal tactic of changing the subject") then I'd have to say we got a whole lot of Liberals here. Just gaze through this thread alone!
You're right about the teenages brain studies. I've read some interesting clinical conclusions about that. As far as ethnicity goes, I don't know the answer to that. I did read that there has been 61 MASS shootings in the US since 1982. The killer used a legally obtained weapon in 49 of them. 47 of those 61 were white males.

plumb-r wrote:Yes the topic was shootings, and the same thing happened in China the same day with a knife. It's not the gun it's the person behind it . If it's not a gun it's something else. How long before a terrorist figures out our schools are easy targets. There is a problem with school security not with guns.

That is true, the same thing did happen in China, sort of. The Chinese incident wounded 23 but killed none. I wish I could say the same for Sandy Hook, Conn. So in this case, I guess it was the gun and the person behind it?

SteveZee wrote:What you guys are missing is that I NEVER called for banning anything. We are talking about REGULATING!

We already regulate them enough. Just the fact that I need a license to defend myself is already over-regulating.

SteveZee wrote:... it states a WELL REGULATED militia. R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E-D. We won't even get into the militia part.

And what does it say after that? "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Yet, it's been infringed upon for the past 50 years ... and we STILL have murders.

SteveZee wrote: ....The Chinese incident wounded 23 but killed none. I wish I could say the same for Sandy Hook, Conn. So in this case, I guess it was the gun and the person behind it.

So after all guns are regulated to the point nobody can own them anymore, what do you do when the kid detonates a bomb inside the school, and there are ZERO survivors? Last I checked, bombs were illegal. Guess nobody told Timothy McVey that ...