Texas shooting.
-
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
School shootings are incredibly rare, despite what the media might make society believe.
On Faceypage someone posted that the US has had more than 200 school shootings. That's patently false, of course, and the definition of "school shooting" includes any shooting in the vicinity of the school, including gang violence.
Per capita I think countries like Norway and France have substantially higher rates of mass shooting fatalities.
Not aware of that. Got a source?
@George-K said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
School shootings are incredibly rare, despite what the media might make society believe.
On Faceypage someone posted that the US has had more than 200 school shootings. That's patently false, of course, and the definition of "school shooting" includes any shooting in the vicinity of the school, including gang violence.
Per capita I think countries like Norway and France have substantially higher rates of mass shooting fatalities.
Not aware of that. Got a source?
Yeah I think there have been maybe 10 school shootings in the last 10 years with 2+ (or 4+?) victims. Not exactly 200 in 6 months.
For the other stat, it was from something like this, although the data is only through 2015 it seems: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country
-
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
School shootings are incredibly rare, despite what the media might make society believe.
On Faceypage someone posted that the US has had more than 200 school shootings. That's patently false, of course, and the definition of "school shooting" includes any shooting in the vicinity of the school, including gang violence.
Per capita I think countries like Norway and France have substantially higher rates of mass shooting fatalities.
Not aware of that. Got a source?
Per capita I think countries like Norway and France have substantially higher rates of mass shooting fatalities.
Not aware of that. Got a source?
This is the horseshit that's probably being trotted out here.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-countryDoes the United States have more mass shootings than other countries? It depends on the data.
Exactly how mass shootings in the U.S. compare to those in other countries is a highly disputed subject. In a widely publicized study originally released in 2015, the pro-gun nonprofit Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) compared the annual number of mass shooting deaths per million people in the U.S. to that of Canada and several European countries from 2009 to 2015. The result? Norway led the world with 1.88 deaths per million, followed by Serbia, France, and Macedonia. Where did the U.S. rank? 11th place.
As eye-opening as the CRPC study was, many statisticians believe the reason the results seem so counterintuitive is that they’re incorrect. One of the more detailed analyses appeared on the fact-checking website snopes.com and concluded that the CRPC report used “inappropriate statistical methods” which led to misleading results.According to the snopes analysis, one of those inappropriate methods was the leaving out of the many European countries that had not experienced a single mass shooting between 2009-2015. This data would not have changed the position of the U.S. on the list, but its absence could lead a reader to believe—incorrectly—that the U.S. experienced fewer mass shooting fatalities per capita than all but a handful of countries in Europe. A more important oversight, again according to snopes, was the report's use of average deaths per capita instead of a more stable metric. Thanks to the smaller populations of most European countries, individual events in those countries had statistically oversized influence and warped the results. For example, Norway’s world-leading annual rate was due to a single devastating 2011 event, in which far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik gunned down 69 people at a summer camp on the island of Utøya. Norway had zero mass shootings in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.
An easy, though arguably insensitive, way to illustrate the shortcomings of this approach is to imagine it applied to the 9/11 attacks, which killed 2,977 people in the United States on a single day in 2001. Running that data through the CRPC formula yields the following statistic: Plane hijackings by terrorists caused an average of 297.7 deaths per year in the U.S. from 2001-2010. This is mathematically accurate, but it paints a badly distorted picture of what actually happened during those ten years.
In addition, the CRPC study went a step further and computed average annual deaths per capita. Critics argue this further warps the data, because Norway’s population is a fraction of the U.S. population. As a result, Norway’s death rate came out more than 20 times higher than that of the U.S.—which tallied 66 deaths in 2012 alone (nearly matching Norway's total for the full study) and averaged at least one death per month for the entire seven-year data set.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
-
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
-
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
Not sure what that has to do with the point.
-
So Red Flag Laws.. as David French proposes...
In a nation of 330MM, red flag laws might prevent some crimes.
That is of course extremely important, but also presumably unknowable.School shootings / mass shootings are statistically minuscule but present a very high degree of damage with a very low rate of occurrence and likelihood.
So I’m inclined to support red flag laws, as a matter of due process for removing rights in the public interest, but it’s not going to stop the next event that happens.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
Not sure what that has to do with the point.
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
Not sure what that has to do with the point.
Neither am I, other than that there's always somebody who thinks that laws are unnecessary or overly restrictive, because hey, they've never killed anybody.
I was only joking
-
So Red Flag Laws.. as David French proposes...
In a nation of 330MM, red flag laws might prevent some crimes.
That is of course extremely important, but also presumably unknowable.School shootings / mass shootings are statistically minuscule but present a very high degree of damage with a very low rate of occurrence and likelihood.
So I’m inclined to support red flag laws, as a matter of due process for removing rights in the public interest, but it’s not going to stop the next event that happens.
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
So Red Flag Laws.. as David French proposes...
In a nation of 330MM, red flag laws might prevent some crimes.
That is of course extremely important, but also presumably unknowable.School shootings / mass shootings are statistically minuscule but present a very high degree of damage with a very low rate of occurrence and likelihood.
So I’m inclined to support red flag laws, as a matter of due process for removing rights in the public interest, but it’s not going to stop the next event that happens.
Sure. But as noted, it'll be impossible to judge the efficacy. And I wonder if we'd hear about unjust applications of this law. Those sorts of stories would not be pursued by media outlets in favor of these laws. Maybe we'd just never hear about the downside.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
Not sure what that has to do with the point.
Neither am I, other than that there's always somebody who thinks that laws are unnecessary or overly restrictive, because hey, they've never killed anybody.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
Not sure what that has to do with the point.
Neither am I, other than that there's always somebody who thinks that laws are unnecessary or overly restrictive, because hey, they've never killed anybody.
It's not as if the opinion that "we should have tougher DUI penalties" is based on some legal weighing of crime and punishment. It's just axiomatic to most that "we should have tougher DUI penalties". It is actually possible to rationally conclude that the penalties are too severe, at some point. Not that that's my conclusion, but I would hear the discussion.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
So Red Flag Laws.. as David French proposes...
In a nation of 330MM, red flag laws might prevent some crimes.
That is of course extremely important, but also presumably unknowable.School shootings / mass shootings are statistically minuscule but present a very high degree of damage with a very low rate of occurrence and likelihood.
So I’m inclined to support red flag laws, as a matter of due process for removing rights in the public interest, but it’s not going to stop the next event that happens.
Sure. But as noted, it'll be impossible to judge the efficacy. And I wonder if we'd hear about unjust applications of this law. Those sorts of stories would not be pursued by media outlets in favor of these laws. Maybe we'd just never hear about the downside.
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
So Red Flag Laws.. as David French proposes...
In a nation of 330MM, red flag laws might prevent some crimes.
That is of course extremely important, but also presumably unknowable.School shootings / mass shootings are statistically minuscule but present a very high degree of damage with a very low rate of occurrence and likelihood.
So I’m inclined to support red flag laws, as a matter of due process for removing rights in the public interest, but it’s not going to stop the next event that happens.
Sure. But as noted, it'll be impossible to judge the efficacy. And I wonder if we'd hear about unjust applications of this law. Those sorts of stories would not be pursued by media outlets in favor of these laws. Maybe we'd just never hear about the downside.
Anyone who challenges the personal application of such a law with be branded a nutter. It becomes a form a kafkatrapping.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
Not sure what that has to do with the point.
Neither am I, other than that there's always somebody who thinks that laws are unnecessary or overly restrictive, because hey, they've never killed anybody.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@Ivorythumper said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
Thousands are killed every year by other drivers who are drunk. This is significantly higher than those killed by active shooters (average of 3 per month). If we want to save lives, it would be logical to require breathalyzers in all vehicles...would have much more of an impact on saving lives than background checks or waiting periods when buying guns.
I seem to think at least one person on TNCR has said the current drink driving laws are overly restrictive and that they can drive perfectly safely when they're over the limit.
Not sure what that has to do with the point.
Neither am I, other than that there's always somebody who thinks that laws are unnecessary or overly restrictive, because hey, they've never killed anybody.
ME!
That was me!
Did I say the laws are unnecessary? I don't think so.
But I probably said that decades ago I drove after drinking many, many times. And never hurt a soul. And never damaged any property.
I can't and don't do it any more, but that has nothing to do with laws.
There it is, I said it.
And I believe the answer was along the lines of shut up.
-
One of my issues with current DUI laws are the penalties do not discern between .08 and .25. The havoc wreaked in one's life is the same. Drivers on the very low end of that are not the biggest issue. Per this article:
"Hardcore drunk drivers continue to wreak havoc on our nation’s road accounting for nearly 70% of drunk driving fatalities, where there is a known alcohol-test result for the driver - a trend that has remained relatively unchanged for more than a decade."
-
AOC blames men
https://www.foxnews.com/media/aoc-patriarchy-masculinity-texas-school-shooting
Ocasio-Cortez called out America's "patriarchal society" and masculinity "rooted in the subjugation of other people" on the day after the attack.
-
So does my niece. And not just men, white men. She posted this. There is so much fallacious there that one scarcely knows where to start.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
HOUSTON (Reuters) - A group of protesters angered over the shooting deaths of Texas elementary school students converged Friday outside the gun-lobby National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Houston.
...
