+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School (/Thread-Mass-Shooting-at-San-Antonio-Elementary-School)
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - KillerGoose - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 11:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is it true that more mass shooting occur in Gun Free Zones?
If so, wouldn't that be an indicator that having an armed person would in fact have a chance to make the shooter pick a different target vs having no protection at all??
Not really, no. You would have to arm those spaces and see if the trends change or not. There are other factors that could influence a shooter to choose a GFZ. It could be population density in that location, accessibility or even something as specific as religious messaging.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Mike M (the other one) - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 11:49 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Not really, no. You would have to arm those spaces and see if the trends change or not. There are other factors that could influence a shooter to choose a GFZ. It could be population density in that location, accessibility or even something as specific as religious messaging.
Not really interested in "other" factors as their is always exceptions and variables you can't count on.
As I said, is it true that GFZ are targeted more than those were you can carry?
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Belsnickel - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 11:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Problem with this type of study is how do we show that someone who planned to open fire on a school was deterred because of an armed guard?
you really can't, so your study.. is a bit inconclusive.
That's not the topic of debate in this conversation. The conversation is about gun control measures and has nothing to do with what you're bringing up. So no, not inconclusive.
(06-08-2022, 11:36 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is it true that more mass shooting occur in Gun Free Zones?
If so, wouldn't that be an indicator that having an armed person would in fact have a chance to make the shooter pick a different target vs having no protection at all??
No, that isn't true. If we use the definition of mass shooting that at least four people were shot in a single incident, we had 693 mass shootings last year, of which 31 were school shootings. 4%. The majority of mass shootings are not at all what we think of when we think of them.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - KillerGoose - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 12:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not really interested in "other" factors as their is always exceptions and variables you can't count on.
As I said, is it true that GFZ are targeted more than those were you can carry?
Okay. The answer is no. Most mass shootings occur outside or in someone's home. You can take a look here.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's not the topic of debate in this conversation. The conversation is about gun control measures and has nothing to do with what you're bringing up. So no, not inconclusive.
No, that isn't true. If we use the definition of mass shooting that at least four people were shot in a single incident, we had 693 mass shootings last year, of which 31 were school shootings. 4%. The majority of mass shootings are not at all what we think of when we think of them.
Accurate. Of course, using such a standard to define mass shootings is done to inflate the numbers to promote gun control. The unintended consequence of that being that it makes the vast majority of "mass shootings" gang related shootings. Also, sadly for the Dem narrative, it also means the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by people other than evil white men. I'll reiterate this very important point for those howling to "do something." If you're not a gang member, associate with gang members, or hang out in areas gang members congregate then you're more likely to get struck by lightning than to be involved in a mass shooting. Anyone here live in permanent fear of being struck by lightning? Don't get me started on how you're exponentially more likely to die driving your car or taking a shower. Anyone here live in mortal fear of driving their car or taking a shower?
Stop letting the media whip you into a state of irrational fear. (not you Bel, I'm speaking generally)
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - BigPapaKain - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Accurate. Of course, using such a standard to define mass shootings is done to inflate the numbers to promote gun control. The unintended consequence of that being that it makes the vast majority of "mass shootings" gang related shootings. Also, sadly for the Dem narrative, it also means the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by people other than evil white men. I'll reiterate this very important point for those howling to "do something." If you're not a gang member, associate with gang members, or hang out in areas gang members congregate then you're more likely to get struck by lightning than to be involved in a mass shooting. Anyone here live in permanent fear of being struck by lightning? Don't get me started on how you're exponentially more likely to die driving your car or taking a shower. Anyone here live in mortal fear of driving their car or taking a shower?
Stop letting the media whip you into a state of irrational fear. (not you Bel, I'm speaking generally)
You just hit all 3 of my biggest fears.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Belsnickel - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Accurate. Of course, using such a standard to define mass shootings is done to inflate the numbers to promote gun control. The unintended consequence of that being that it makes the vast majority of "mass shootings" gang related shootings. Also, sadly for the Dem narrative, it also means the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by people other than evil white men. I'll reiterate this very important point for those howling to "do something." If you're not a gang member, associate with gang members, or hang out in areas gang members congregate then you're more likely to get struck by lightning than to be involved in a mass shooting. Anyone here live in permanent fear of being struck by lightning? Don't get me started on how you're exponentially more likely to die driving your car or taking a shower. Anyone here live in mortal fear of driving their car or taking a shower?
Stop letting the media whip you into a state of irrational fear. (not you Bel, I'm speaking generally)
Oh, absolutely.
So, let's readjust, even, and use the 2022 stats.
Four victims the number so far is 249. Of which, two were at schools (24 total school shootings, only two had four or more victims).
If we bump the number up to eight, we have had 26 mass shootings this year, with only one at a school (Uvalde).
If we use the FBI definition, which is four deaths in an event, we have had 12 mass shootings so far, with Uvalde being, again, the only one at a school.
The biggest point of this is to piggy back on SSF's points that these events are rare and shouldn't feed fear. I will also add that the most common theme among the list from the FBI definition: domestic violence.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 01:41 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You just hit all 3 of my biggest fears.
You cheeky monkey.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 01:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, absolutely.
So, let's readjust, even, and use the 2022 stats.
Four victims the number so far is 249. Of which, two were at schools (24 total school shootings, only two had four or more victims).
If we bump the number up to eight, we have had 26 mass shootings this year, with only one at a school (Uvalde).
If we use the FBI definition, which is four deaths in an event, we have had 12 mass shootings so far, with Uvalde being, again, the only one at a school.
The biggest point of this is to piggy back on SSF's points that these events are rare and shouldn't feed fear. I will also add that the most common theme among the list from the FBI definition: domestic violence.
Again, all correct. I would note to anyone else reading that none of us are downplaying this horrifying tragedy. If this was the only mass shooting the entire year it would not lessen the tragedy of the actual event. But if we're talking about curtailing the rights of every citizen in this country then we need to be honest about what we're discussing.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - hollodero - 06-08-2022
(06-08-2022, 07:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I'll just focus on this as I feel like it's a good place to bring the conversation around. While in a lot of cases I would agree with the "more likely than not" position, that also depends on the policy topic. When it comes to wildlife conservation, for example, a more likely than not scenario is going to pass muster. But that's because we aren't (directly) dealing with the restriction of civil liberties.
When the government looks to enact a law that limits a civil liberty expressed in the U.S. Constitution then the evidence needs to be solid that it will have the desired effect. Gun violence is something that infringes on the right to life of many Americans every day, and I, as well as most people, would agree that the right to live is more sacred than the right to bear arms. However, the right to bear arms is still a civil liberty and so for the government to infringe upon that there has to be a higher burden of proof that it will have an impact on the public good. Preponderance doesn't work, you have to be beyond a reasonable doubt (or strict scrutiny when talking about judicial review).
That whole principle makes a lot of sense, for sure. However. It is, in the end, still a totally arbitrary one. There is - and maybe I see that incorrectly - no law that makes it mandatory to follow a 'beyond reasonable doubt' hurdle, including no constitutional one, it is not set in any stone. And I would also argue that it is not even the most compelling common sense stance. Especially when talking about all kinds of measures that allegedly are about an 80-20 issue with the people, like more background checks and the like [I did not check out all kinds of polls on different measures, it's more of a principled argument to me at this point]. In the end, isn't the will of the people the most important factor in a democracy.
Even when being at odds with the constitution, I might add. Constitutions can be amended and changed in a perfectly legal manner, at least in my country (we need 2/3 of parliament); I take it there's also a legal, even if possibly way more complicated way to do so in the US. As there should be.
(06-08-2022, 07:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I push for what's called root-cause mitigation. This is a method in which we look for solutions to the gun violence problem in things like mental health, socioeconomic hardships, etc. Partially because, yes, I do agree with the 2A, but mostly because I want to solve the problem with ways that pass legal muster.
That sure is a sensible approach. In a way, but yeah it's again not an either/or. - Which is why I might ask, all legal implications aside for a minute: Wouldn't some I'd say minor adjustments, maybe a higher age limit, at least possibly make some sense to you, is there a part of your mindset that can see my perspective on that? I usually try to avoid polemic arguments; but the one where folks say how weird it is that you can buy any gun with 18 and can't get a beer until 21, imho, is worth a mention even in a serious debate.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Arturo Bandini - 06-09-2022
So I guess this dude is protected by the 1st amendment even if he is calling for the murder of millions of human beings ?
https://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/1534207173034758144758144
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Belsnickel - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 04:38 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: So I guess this dude is protected by the 1st amendment even if he is calling for the murder of millions of human beings ?
https://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/1534207173034758144758144
Yup. From my understanding of First Amendment case law, that does not constitute a true threat, fighting words, of advocacy of imminent lawless action as the court defines them. Because he is saying that it is the government's duty to take the action, he is not saying he will do it or telling his followers to do it. Therefore it is protected speech.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 04:38 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: So I guess this dude is protected by the 1st amendment even if he is calling for the murder of millions of human beings ?
https://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/1534207173034758144758144
Bel already covered this, but I guarantee you'll hear just as bad at several mosques in your country.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - michaelsean - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 04:38 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: So I guess this dude is protected by the 1st amendment even if he is calling for the murder of millions of human beings ?
https://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/1534207173034758144758144
Pretty much, and now everyone knows what a POS he is. I'm sure this guy thinks he is a Super-American, and yet he want people executed because of what he perceives of as a sin.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - hollodero - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 01:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Pretty much, and now everyone knows what a POS he is. I'm sure this guy thinks he is a Super-American, and yet he want people executed because of what he perceives of as a sin.
I wonder though, what if tomorrow there's news about someone killing several gay people and claiming said POS motivated him to do so. Would he be in trouble then?
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - michaelsean - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 01:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: I wonder though, what if tomorrow there's news about someone killing several gay people and claiming said POS motivated him to do so. Would he be in trouble then?
I would think not. As I read it, he is saying the government should execute them.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 01:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: I wonder though, what if tomorrow there's news about someone killing several gay people and claiming said POS motivated him to do so. Would he be in trouble then?
It has to be a direct call for action. If he said "we should kill all of them", or "let's kill all of them" that could be considered incitement. It may be a fine distinction, but that's where the line is drawn here.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - michaelsean - 06-09-2022
I will have to add, that I think very few of us are purists in our beliefs. I believe strongly in the 1st amendment. I believe we are born free, and nobody should be able to dictate what we think or say. That being said, if this guy were to end up dead it wouldn't upset me in the least. The police should attempt to apprehend the killer, and the killer should go to prison, but I wouldn't be able to make myself care that a horrible person is gone.
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - hollodero - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 01:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would think not. As I read it, he is saying the government should execute them.
(06-09-2022, 01:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It has to be a direct call for action. If he said "we should kill all of them", or "let's kill all of them" that could be considered incitement. It may be a fine distinction, but that's where the line is drawn here.
OK, so what about civil lawsuits? Could this guy potentially be sentenced to compensation payments?
RE: Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School - michaelsean - 06-09-2022
(06-09-2022, 01:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, so what about civil lawsuits? Could this guy potentially be sentenced to compensation payments?
That's a whole different ballgame. If a jury agrees, then yes although it's not called a "sentence".