The Real Problem With School Shootings
During these times many call for gun control, but guns are not the problem. There is a common theme with all of these school shootings.
Dustin Severin, a 17-year-old student, told local NBC affiliate KPRC that he saw Pagourtzis in the hallway shortly before the bullets started flying — and that he was wearing his usual outfit.
"He wears a trench coat every day, and it's like 90 degrees out here," Severin said.
Pagourtzis, Severin added, was the victim of bullying — and not just by other students.
"He's been picked on by coaches before, for smelling bad and stuff like that," Severin said. "And he doesn't really talk to very many people either. He keeps to himself." (NBC News)
The problem is bullying. The problem is a culture that allows students, and apparently coaches, to scoff down on those that are different and treat them as lesser than equal. It is not guns and until we address the real issue rather than looking at the red herring, these events will continue to happen.
It is a heart issue, not a law issue.
Comments
-
@reformed said:
The problem is bullying. The problem is a culture that allows students, and apparently coaches, to scoff down on those that are different and treat them as lesser than equal. It is not guns and until we address the real issue rather than looking at the red herring, these events will continue to happen.Which do you expect would inflict more carnage, reformed: a bullied 17 year-old WITH a gun, or a bullied 17 year-old WITHOUT a gun? If guns are the red herrings you claim they are, then doesn't your expectation have to be that the two bullied 17 year-olds would produce about the same amount of carnage? And doesn't such an expectation fly in the face of reality?
It is a heart issue, not a law issue.
Laws are necessary because hearts aren't always right.
Why do we have to have laws against murder? If everyone's heart was right, no one would commit murder, and there'd be no need for laws against it. But since not everyone's heart is right, we have have laws against murder... and bank robbery... and tax evasion... and certain kinds of guns.
As long as there are heart issues, there will be law issues.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
The problem is bullying. The problem is a culture that allows students, and apparently coaches, to scoff down on those that are different and treat them as lesser than equal. It is not guns and until we address the real issue rather than looking at the red herring, these events will continue to happen.Which do you expect would inflict more carnage, reformed: a bullied 17 year-old WITH a gun, or a bullied 17 year-old WITHOUT a gun? If guns are the red herrings you claim they are, then doesn't your expectation have to be that the two bullied 17 year-olds would produce about the same amount of carnage? And doesn't such an expectation fly in the face of reality?
Well proposed gun control measures would not have stopped this anyway.
It is a heart issue, not a law issue.
Laws are necessary because hearts aren't always right.
Why do we have to have laws against murder? If everyone's heart was right, no one would commit murder, and there'd be no need for laws against it. But since not everyone's heart is right, we have have laws against murder... and bank robbery... and tax evasion... and certain kinds of guns.
As long as there are heart issues, there will be law issues.
I agree, however, there is something we can do about the bully culture, it's time for the church to step up. No law will fix this or even curb this.
-
@reformed said:
Well proposed gun control measures would not have stopped this anyway.
And laws against murder don't stop all murders. Does that mean laws against murder aren't useful or necessary? Most laws are in effect, not because they stop all instances of the crimes they prohibit, but because we've decided to express our view that those behaviors are wrong, and/or to provide for the best/safest possible society in which to raise kids and live as adults. THAT'S why we need gun laws.
I have to point out that you didn't address the question I asked, reformed. I asked which of two bullied 17 year-olds you'd expect to inflict more carnage: one with a gun, or one without a gun. If guns are not part of the issue - if they're truly the red herrings you claim them to be - then I'd expect you to say those two 17 year-olds would likely inflict the same amount of carnage. But you and I both know that it's FAR more likely that the gun-toting bullied 17 year-old would inflict more carnage. Hence, guns ARE part of the problem.
I agree, however, there is something we can do about the bully culture, it's time for the church to step up. No law will fix this or even curb this.
The church can and should step up, as should parents and school districts. But the church has a limited sphere of influence. Laws, too, have limited potential, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Well proposed gun control measures would not have stopped this anyway.
And laws against murder don't stop all murders. Does that mean laws against murder aren't useful or necessary? Most laws are in effect, not because they stop all instances of the crimes they prohibit, but because we've decided to express our view that those behaviors are wrong, and/or to provide for the best/safest possible society in which to raise kids and live as adults. THAT'S why we need gun laws.
And gun laws wouldn't have stopped this, that's what you fail to address.
I have to point out that you didn't address the question I asked, reformed. I asked which of two bullied 17 year-olds you'd expect to inflict more carnage: one with a gun, or one without a gun. If guns are not part of the issue - if they're truly the red herrings you claim them to be - then I'd expect you to say those two 17 year-olds would likely inflict the same amount of carnage. But you and I both know that it's FAR more likely that the gun-toting bullied 17 year-old would inflict more carnage. Hence, guns ARE part of the problem.
Then we should also get rid of knives, trucks, planes, and anything else used to kill people.
I agree, however, there is something we can do about the bully culture, it's time for the church to step up. No law will fix this or even curb this.
The church can and should step up, as should parents and school districts. But the church has a limited sphere of influence. Laws, too, have limited potential, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
We have laws about guns already.
-
@reformed said:
And gun laws wouldn't have stopped this, that's what you fail to address.I addressed the fact that gun laws wouldn't have stopped the Texas shooting when I wrote this...
"And laws against murder don't stop all murders. Does that mean laws against murder aren't useful or necessary? Most laws are in effect, not because they stop all instances of the crimes they prohibit, but because we've decided to express our view that those behaviors are wrong, and/or to provide for the best/safest possible society in which to raise kids and live as adults. THAT'S why we need gun laws."
Now, for the third time I'll ask you to address my question about the armed and unarmed bullied 17 year-olds. Which do you believe would likely inflict more carnage?
Then we should also get rid of knives, trucks, planes, and anything else used to kill people.
Only the idealists among us argue that we should "get rid of" guns. We ask for reforms that take guns out of the hands of say, people on the terror watch list. We ask for universal background checks - no escape hatches via inter-personal or gun show sales. We ask for a ban on private ownership of certain kinds of guns (machine guns are already banned; there are others we could add to the list)
According to the FBI, more than 11,000 Americans were murdered by firearms in 2016; 656 were murdered by knives. Which weapon is the bigger problem?
We have laws about guns already.
And in our nation, when the laws in place produce insufficient results, we amend the laws. It happens all the time.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
And gun laws wouldn't have stopped this, that's what you fail to address.I addressed the fact that gun laws wouldn't have stopped the Texas shooting when I wrote this...
"And laws against murder don't stop all murders. Does that mean laws against murder aren't useful or necessary? Most laws are in effect, not because they stop all instances of the crimes they prohibit, but because we've decided to express our view that those behaviors are wrong, and/or to provide for the best/safest possible society in which to raise kids and live as adults. THAT'S why we need gun laws."
Now, for the third time I'll ask you to address my question about the armed and unarmed bullied 17 year-olds. Which do you believe would likely inflict more carnage?
That's not the right question.
Then we should also get rid of knives, trucks, planes, and anything else used to kill people.
Only the idealists among us argue that we should "get rid of" guns. We ask for reforms that take guns out of the hands of say, people on the terror watch list. We ask for universal background checks - no escape hatches via inter-personal or gun show sales. We ask for a ban on private ownership of certain kinds of guns (machine guns are already banned; there are others we could add to the list)
Which is the problem. You use an event like this to argue for that even though none of it would have applied in this case.
According to the FBI, more than 11,000 Americans were murdered by firearms in 2016; 656 were murdered by knives. Which weapon is the bigger problem?
We have laws about guns already.
And in our nation, when the laws in place produce insufficient results, we amend the laws. It happens all the time.
None of your proposed laws would have applied here.
-
@reformed said:
That's not the right question.It's the right question in the way that matters most: It's the question I asked you.
In another thread, I think you referred to something called "forum etiquette." Is it proper etiquette to refuse to even mention a poster's question the first two times he/she asks it, then when asked the same question a third time, to refuse to answer it by telling the poster you disapprove of the question he/she asked?
MY understanding of proper etiquette is that if you ask me a question, I should answer it, and answer it the first time you ask it. In my response I may include concerns I have about your question's relevance, but those concerns cannot excuse me from addressing your question directly. And I most certainly shouldn't refuse to answer your question by failing to acknowledge it or by telling you I don't like it.
What's your understanding of forum etiquette when someone asks you a question?
And while you're at it, please answer this: Which do you expect would inflict more carnage: a bullied 17 year-old WITH a gun, or a bullied 17 year-old WITHOUT a gun? If guns are the red herrings you claim they are - if guns really aren't part of the problem - then doesn't your expectation have to be that the two bullied 17 year-olds would produce about the same amount of carnage? And doesn't such an expectation fly in the face of reality?
Which is the problem. You use an event like this to argue for that even though none of it would have applied in this case.
The fact that the proposed gun law changes I listed would not have affected this particular shooting is not relevant to the prospective value of those laws. For example, universal background checks would be a good thing, whether they prevented every mass shooting event or not.
-
Just an observation. But Jesus said those who take the sword will perish by it. And I wonder if the 2nd Amendment isn't coming full circle.
-
The Real Problem With School Shootings by CM
Students, bullets, death, news, reports, a lot of talks, politicians, town-halls, doctors, hospitals, first-responders, cries of don't change the laws; it's just another day, this one at Santa Fe.
Too many people don't think the problems are guns;
Despite America's megatons of guns, as if students are nuns.Gun Laws are not the solutions, so-say the NRA,
More guns for all, are the only way.Before the evaporation of shotgun fumes;
There is a renewed call for teachers with guns in the classrooms.Anti-gun movements and Parkland High students failed to grasp State Gun Law's intendment;
The "Religious Right", "Evangelicals", politicians and the NRA vow to protect the Second Amendment.After the 22 school-shootings since January 2018; Lawmakers would not consider limiting automatic magazines. The same humdrum is enough to make one scream.
Regardless of where or how many killing states of affairs;
From the US President and Governors in it's almost predictable without fail, to hear "we have you in our thoughts and prayers".Guns are not to blame, so said, gun-lovers without shame;
A mother's son who will not come home, how do you explain?The Democrats blame Republicans; Republicans blame the Democrats; parents blame the school; the school blames the state; the state blames the Department of Ed; the NRA said we are protecting your Second Amendment Rights, and a mother grieves. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That's not the right question.It's the right question in the way that matters most: It's the question I asked you.
In another thread, I think you referred to something called "forum etiquette." Is it proper etiquette to refuse to even mention a poster's question the first two times he/she asks it, then when asked the same question a third time, to refuse to answer it by telling the poster you disapprove of the question he/she asked?
MY understanding of proper etiquette is that if you ask me a question, I should answer it, and answer it the first time you ask it. In my response I may include concerns I have about your question's relevance, but those concerns cannot excuse me from addressing your question directly. And I most certainly shouldn't refuse to answer your question by failing to acknowledge it or by telling you I don't like it.
What's your understanding of forum etiquette when someone asks you a question?
And while you're at it, please answer this: Which do you expect would inflict more carnage: a bullied 17 year-old WITH a gun, or a bullied 17 year-old WITHOUT a gun? If guns are the red herrings you claim they are - if guns really aren't part of the problem - then doesn't your expectation have to be that the two bullied 17 year-olds would produce about the same amount of carnage? And doesn't such an expectation fly in the face of reality?
Which is the problem. You use an event like this to argue for that even though none of it would have applied in this case.
The fact that the proposed gun law changes I listed would not have affected this particular shooting is not relevant to the prospective value of those laws. For example, universal background checks would be a good thing, whether they prevented every mass shooting event or not.
Obviously one without a gun, however, I did answer your question by stating that is the wrong question to ask. The question should be why is he turning to violence in the first place?
I am also against making laws for the sake of making laws when they will have no impact on the results at all.
@Dave_L said:
Just an observation. But Jesus said those who take the sword will perish by it. And I wonder if the 2nd Amendment isn't coming full circle.That's taken out of context.
@C_M_ said:
The Real Problem With School Shootings by CM
Students, bullets, death, news, reports, a lot of talks, politicians, town-halls, doctors, hospitals, first-responders, cries of don't change the laws; it's just another day, this one at Santa Fe.
Too many people don't think the problems are guns;
Despite America's megatons of guns, as if students are nuns.Gun Laws are not the solutions, so-say the NRA,
More guns for all, are the only way.Before the evaporation of shotgun fumes;
There is a renewed call for teachers with guns in the classrooms.Anti-gun movements and Parkland High students failed to grasp State Gun Law's intendment;
The "Religious Right", "Evangelicals", politicians and the NRA vow to protect the Second Amendment.After the 22 school-shootings since January 2018; Lawmakers would not consider limiting automatic magazines. The same humdrum is enough to make one scream.
This is a false statement, there have not been 22 true school shootings in 2018. Please check your facts.
Regardless of where or how many killing states of affairs;
From the US President and Governors in it's almost predictable without fail, to hear "we have you in our thoughts and prayers".Guns are not to blame, so said, gun-lovers without shame;
A mother's son who will not come home, how do you explain?The Democrats blame Republicans; Republicans blame the Democrats; parents blame the school; the school blames the state; the state blames the Department of Ed; the NRA said we are protecting your Second Amendment Rights, and a mother grieves. CM
Not sure what any of this poem has to do with this thread.
-
Reformed,
What I reported about school shootings is true, rather there was a death or injury. Stop straining at a nat and see the beam in the eyes of a society of guns, schools and deaths.So, please don't waste your time trying to correct me and comprehend the real problem and the vulnerability of children in America's public schools.
See a full article below to broaden your understanding. People like you and others seem to be grossly opposed to any additional gun accountability laws. What will it take, a personal death of a family member? The death of others family losses, you and others seem unmoved and without compassion.
To be technical, is there a vast difference between 18 and 22 (School incidents) when there is "The difficulty of agreeing on a common definition of "school shooting" shows just how many different types of firearm incidents occur on school grounds?"
You are being a bit cool and unreasonable when it comes to the whole issue of deaths of students, schools, guns, and grieving families. Do you agree? CM
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/
How Many School Shootings Have Taken Place So Far in 2018?
The difficulty of agreeing on a common definition of "school shooting" shows just how many different types of firearm incidents occur on school grounds.
Seventeen people were killed and more than 15 injured in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February 2018, bringing the total number of school shootings in the United States since the beginning of the year to 18 (or roughly three per week), according to the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.
That shocking figure was reported in the press and endlessly repeated on social media as the day wore on:
But not everyone was convinced of the validity of that figure, which was based on Everytown’s five-year running count.“The problem is that it’s not accurate,” wrote Siraj Hashmi in an editorial for the Washington Examiner:
There haven’t been 18 of what we would refer to as “school shootings” in 2018. The media is either sheepishly or deliberately moving the goalposts and widening the definition of what constitutes a school shooting.
Hashmi and others who called the statistic into question had a point. When we looked into it, we found that although all the incidents involved the firing of weapons on school grounds, some bore little resemblance to what most of us would think of when we hear that a school shooting has taken place. Two were solely suicides, for example (one of which Everytown retracted on 15 February after the Washington Post pointed out that it occurred at a school that had been closed for several months). Three involved the accidental firing of a weapon. Eight resulted in no injuries. Only seven were intentional shootings that occurred during normal school hours.
Of course, many viewing Everytown’s statistic and map image, especially in the wake of Parkland, might mistakenly assume that “school shooting” indicates a Columbine-style event, or at the very least the intention by the perpetrator to carry one out. We’d suggest it would be more useful to refer to Everytown’s tally as “gunfire incidents on school grounds” and perhaps limit the criteria to shootings that took place during school hours when students or faculty are actually present.
The difficulty of defining what exactly a school shooting is highlights how common it is to find guns on school grounds — in the hands of intruders, security personnel, and the students themselves. Should the accidental firing of a weapon count as a school shooting? What if someone is injured or killed in such an incident? What about intentional shootings that injure no one? Or incidents in which a non-student kills another non-student on school grounds late at night? The Washington Post‘s alternate tally of only five school shootings in 2018 excludes any that did not cause a physical injury, which also seems to obscure the point.
This is the definition of “school shooting” used by Everytown for Gun Safety (as stated on their web site):
Consistent with expert advice and common sense, Everytown uses a straightforward, fair, and comprehensive definition for a school shooting: any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds, as documented by the press and, when necessary, confirmed through further inquiries with law enforcement or school officials. Incidents in which guns were brought into schools but not discharged, or where the firearm was discharged off school grounds, are not included. The database is updated as new shootings occur or as new evidence emerges about prior incidents.
When we asked Everytown for a response to criticisms that their criteria for school shootings are too broad, we received a prepared statement from Sarah Tofte, the organization’s director of research and implementation:
Every time gunfire breaks out on school grounds, it can shatter a child’s sense that they are safe in their school and in their community. Tracking each of these incidents is an important way to measure some of the many ways that shootings affect children in this country.
To be sure, every time a gun goes off in a school, intentionally or not, and whether anyone is injured or not, it’s potentially traumatic for students, teachers, and parents. We find no fault with Everytown’s raw data, which is useful and important, only with the overly broad way it is categorized and then parroted in the media.
Breaking Out the Numbers
As of Everytown’s 15 February update, the total number of school gunfire incidents in 2018 stood at 17. Using their numbers as a starting point, we’ve broken out all the known incidents between 1 January and 14 February 2018 into more detailed categories.
Firearm attacks during school hours: 7 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 5)
22 January: Italy High School, Italy, Texas – A 16-year-old student opened fire with a semi-automatic handgun in the school cafeteria, wounding another student.
22 January: NET Charter High School, Gentilly, Louisiana – An unknown person fired shots at students from a vehicle in the school parking lot. One person was injured (though not by gunfire).
23 January: Marshall County High School, Benton, Kentucky – A 15-year-old student opened fire with a handgun on school grounds, killing two and injuring 18.
25 January: Murphy High School, Mobile, Alabama – A student fired a handgun into the air during a fight with another student. No injuries were reported.
26 January: Dearborn High School, Dearborn, Michigan – Shots were fired during a fight in the school parking lot. No injuries were reported.
31 January: Lincoln High School, Philadelphia – A fight during a basketball game resulted in the shooting death of a 32-year-old man outside the school.
14 February: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida – A 19-year-old former student opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle, killing 17 and injuring 14.
Firearm attacks NOT occurring during school hours: 2 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 2)
20 January: Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina – A 21-year-old was shot and killed during a fight at a party on school grounds.
5 February: – Oxon Hill High School, Oxon Hill, Maryland – A student was shot and injured in the school parking lot during an attempted robbery.
Shots fired during school hours, unknown reason: 2 (no injuries)
10 January: California State University, San Bernardino, California – Bullets were fired through a window, with no suspects or motive identified.
8 February: Metropolitan High School, New York, NY – A student fired a gun into the floor of a classroom.
Unintentional gunfire during school hours: 3 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 1)
- 10 January: Grayson College, Denison, Texas – A student fired a weapon belonging to an adviser, believing it wasn’t loaded. No injuries were reported.
- 1 February: Salvador B. Castro Middle School, Los Angeles – A semi-automatic handgun brought to school by a 12-year-old student accidentally went off. Four students were injured.
- 5 February: Harmony Learning Center, Maplewood, Minnesota – A third-grader pressed the trigger of a law enforcement officer’s handgun. The weapon went off but no one was injured.
Suicide attempts during school hours: 1 (resulting in death)
10 January: Coronado Elementary School, Sierra Vista, Arizona – A middle school student shot himself in the bathroom of the school and was pronounced dead at the scene.
Stray bullets hitting school buildings during school hours: 1 (no injuries)
4 January: New Start High School, near Seattle – Bullets fired by an unidentified shooter entered an administrative office. No injuries were reported.
Stray bullets hitting school buildings NOT occurring during school hours: 1 (no injuries)
15 January: Wiley College, Marshall, Texas – Gunshots fired from a vehicle in the parking lot of a college dorm entered through a window, but did not injure residents.
Corrections [20 February 2018]: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that a rifle had been used in the 1 February unintentional shooting in Los Angeles; it also misspelled the name of Grayson College.
Truth found truth shared. CM
-
One of the most powerful forces creating school shooters today is the attitudes expressed above, the actions of the Left and especially the liberal media. Especially by manipulated, abused, misguided children like David Hogg.
-
@reformed said:
Obviously one without a gun, however, I did answer your question by stating that is the wrong question to ask. The question should be why is he turning to violence in the first place?I'm guessing you meant to assert that the one WITH a gun would inflict more damage than the one without a gun. If that was your intended assertion, I agree.
Your original assertion was that the problem is bullying, that ours is "a culture that allows students, and apparently coaches, to scoff down on those that are different and treat them as lesser than equal." My point - with which I think you agree - is that bullied kids can inflict more damage when armed with guns than when they're not. In my view, that makes guns part of the issue.
I am also against making laws for the sake of making laws when they will have no impact on the results at all.
In my view, sometimes society needs to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing, regardless of its impact. And it's the right thing that every gun purchaser in every gun purchase - no exemptions - should be subject to a background check.
@GaoLu said:
One of the most powerful forces creating school shooters today is the attitudes expressed above, the actions of the Left and especially the liberal media. Especially by manipulated, abused, misguided children like David Hogg.Is there a more trusted source for objective analysis of social ills than Dana Loesch of the NRA?... Well, of course there is, but let's not let her lack of bona fides distract us from asking the question begged by the hypothetical of her being correct: Which is likely to inflict more carnage: A troubled person who wants his name to be spoken by media outlets WITH a gun, or a troubled person who wants his name to be spoken by media outlets WITHOUT one?
-
Dana Loesch of the NRA is "out to lunch." Reporting the shooter's name is NOT encouraging new shooters. This is foolishness on its face. If anything, don't report the school shooting at all. Of course, this would make gun owners and the NRA happy campers. Children are dead! They didn't die of natural causes. There are grieving families.
Blame everybody or something else just don't point a finger at the NRA or guns. Everybody in the world is not like Mr. Trump's die-hard 40%ers. Some people can still think and connect the dots of reality.
Politicians and Christians (INO-In Name Only) who support the NRA should be ashamed of themselves! There are more regulations to securing a driver's license than there are purchasing and carrying a gun. How is this in a country who prides itself on law and order? When parents, lawmakers, governors, and the President failed to take measures to protect schoolhouses; the children's, blood would be on their hands.
The NRA and the Second Amendment are not ordained of God. Put the children first America! CM
-
I always try to relate what I see to scripture. Is violence in America related to the bloody 2nd Amendment as God's judgement? Or to abortion laws and unjust wars (preemptive strike aggression) as judgement? We see parallels to this in scripture in the laws of sowing and reaping and judgements for national sin throughout the Old Testament.
-
@C_M_ said:
Reformed,
What I reported about school shootings is true, rather there was a death or injury. Stop straining at a nat and see the beam in the eyes of a society of guns, schools and deaths.So, please don't waste your time trying to correct me and comprehend the real problem and the vulnerability of children in America's public schools.
See a full article below to broaden your understanding. People like you and others seem to be grossly opposed to any additional gun accountability laws. What will it take, a personal death of a family member? The death of others family losses, you and others seem unmoved and without compassion.
To be technical, is there a vast difference between 18 and 22 (School incidents) when there is "The difficulty of agreeing on a common definition of "school shooting" shows just how many different types of firearm incidents occur on school grounds?"
You are being a bit cool and unreasonable when it comes to the whole issue of deaths of students, schools, guns, and grieving families. Do you agree? CM
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/
How Many School Shootings Have Taken Place So Far in 2018?
The difficulty of agreeing on a common definition of "school shooting" shows just how many different types of firearm incidents occur on school grounds.
Seventeen people were killed and more than 15 injured in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February 2018, bringing the total number of school shootings in the United States since the beginning of the year to 18 (or roughly three per week), according to the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.
That shocking figure was reported in the press and endlessly repeated on social media as the day wore on:
But not everyone was convinced of the validity of that figure, which was based on Everytown’s five-year running count.“The problem is that it’s not accurate,” wrote Siraj Hashmi in an editorial for the Washington Examiner:
There haven’t been 18 of what we would refer to as “school shootings” in 2018. The media is either sheepishly or deliberately moving the goalposts and widening the definition of what constitutes a school shooting.
Hashmi and others who called the statistic into question had a point. When we looked into it, we found that although all the incidents involved the firing of weapons on school grounds, some bore little resemblance to what most of us would think of when we hear that a school shooting has taken place. Two were solely suicides, for example (one of which Everytown retracted on 15 February after the Washington Post pointed out that it occurred at a school that had been closed for several months). Three involved the accidental firing of a weapon. Eight resulted in no injuries. Only seven were intentional shootings that occurred during normal school hours.
Of course, many viewing Everytown’s statistic and map image, especially in the wake of Parkland, might mistakenly assume that “school shooting” indicates a Columbine-style event, or at the very least the intention by the perpetrator to carry one out. We’d suggest it would be more useful to refer to Everytown’s tally as “gunfire incidents on school grounds” and perhaps limit the criteria to shootings that took place during school hours when students or faculty are actually present.
The difficulty of defining what exactly a school shooting is highlights how common it is to find guns on school grounds — in the hands of intruders, security personnel, and the students themselves. Should the accidental firing of a weapon count as a school shooting? What if someone is injured or killed in such an incident? What about intentional shootings that injure no one? Or incidents in which a non-student kills another non-student on school grounds late at night? The Washington Post‘s alternate tally of only five school shootings in 2018 excludes any that did not cause a physical injury, which also seems to obscure the point.
This is the definition of “school shooting” used by Everytown for Gun Safety (as stated on their web site):
Consistent with expert advice and common sense, Everytown uses a straightforward, fair, and comprehensive definition for a school shooting: any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds, as documented by the press and, when necessary, confirmed through further inquiries with law enforcement or school officials. Incidents in which guns were brought into schools but not discharged, or where the firearm was discharged off school grounds, are not included. The database is updated as new shootings occur or as new evidence emerges about prior incidents.
When we asked Everytown for a response to criticisms that their criteria for school shootings are too broad, we received a prepared statement from Sarah Tofte, the organization’s director of research and implementation:
Every time gunfire breaks out on school grounds, it can shatter a child’s sense that they are safe in their school and in their community. Tracking each of these incidents is an important way to measure some of the many ways that shootings affect children in this country.
To be sure, every time a gun goes off in a school, intentionally or not, and whether anyone is injured or not, it’s potentially traumatic for students, teachers, and parents. We find no fault with Everytown’s raw data, which is useful and important, only with the overly broad way it is categorized and then parroted in the media.
Breaking Out the Numbers
As of Everytown’s 15 February update, the total number of school gunfire incidents in 2018 stood at 17. Using their numbers as a starting point, we’ve broken out all the known incidents between 1 January and 14 February 2018 into more detailed categories.
Firearm attacks during school hours: 7 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 5)
22 January: Italy High School, Italy, Texas – A 16-year-old student opened fire with a semi-automatic handgun in the school cafeteria, wounding another student.
22 January: NET Charter High School, Gentilly, Louisiana – An unknown person fired shots at students from a vehicle in the school parking lot. One person was injured (though not by gunfire).
23 January: Marshall County High School, Benton, Kentucky – A 15-year-old student opened fire with a handgun on school grounds, killing two and injuring 18.
25 January: Murphy High School, Mobile, Alabama – A student fired a handgun into the air during a fight with another student. No injuries were reported.
26 January: Dearborn High School, Dearborn, Michigan – Shots were fired during a fight in the school parking lot. No injuries were reported.
31 January: Lincoln High School, Philadelphia – A fight during a basketball game resulted in the shooting death of a 32-year-old man outside the school.
14 February: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida – A 19-year-old former student opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle, killing 17 and injuring 14.
Firearm attacks NOT occurring during school hours: 2 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 2)
20 January: Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina – A 21-year-old was shot and killed during a fight at a party on school grounds.
5 February: – Oxon Hill High School, Oxon Hill, Maryland – A student was shot and injured in the school parking lot during an attempted robbery.
Shots fired during school hours, unknown reason: 2 (no injuries)
10 January: California State University, San Bernardino, California – Bullets were fired through a window, with no suspects or motive identified.
8 February: Metropolitan High School, New York, NY – A student fired a gun into the floor of a classroom.
Unintentional gunfire during school hours: 3 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 1)
- 10 January: Grayson College, Denison, Texas – A student fired a weapon belonging to an adviser, believing it wasn’t loaded. No injuries were reported.
- 1 February: Salvador B. Castro Middle School, Los Angeles – A semi-automatic handgun brought to school by a 12-year-old student accidentally went off. Four students were injured.
- 5 February: Harmony Learning Center, Maplewood, Minnesota – A third-grader pressed the trigger of a law enforcement officer’s handgun. The weapon went off but no one was injured.
Suicide attempts during school hours: 1 (resulting in death)
10 January: Coronado Elementary School, Sierra Vista, Arizona – A middle school student shot himself in the bathroom of the school and was pronounced dead at the scene.
Stray bullets hitting school buildings during school hours: 1 (no injuries)
4 January: New Start High School, near Seattle – Bullets fired by an unidentified shooter entered an administrative office. No injuries were reported.
Stray bullets hitting school buildings NOT occurring during school hours: 1 (no injuries)
15 January: Wiley College, Marshall, Texas – Gunshots fired from a vehicle in the parking lot of a college dorm entered through a window, but did not injure residents.
Corrections [20 February 2018]: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that a rifle had been used in the 1 February unintentional shooting in Los Angeles; it also misspelled the name of Grayson College.
Truth found truth shared. CM
Thank you for proving my point, there were not 20+ school shootings this year. This is a tactic that gun control activists use to make it seem like the problem is more widespread than it is rather than being honest.
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Obviously one without a gun, however, I did answer your question by stating that is the wrong question to ask. The question should be why is he turning to violence in the first place?I'm guessing you meant to assert that the one WITH a gun would inflict more damage than the one without a gun. If that was your intended assertion, I agree.
Correct
Your original assertion was that the problem is bullying, that ours is "a culture that allows students, and apparently coaches, to scoff down on those that are different and treat them as lesser than equal." My point - with which I think you agree - is that bullied kids can inflict more damage when armed with guns than when they're not. In my view, that makes guns part of the issue.
I am also against making laws for the sake of making laws when they will have no impact on the results at all.
In my view, sometimes society needs to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing, regardless of its impact. And it's the right thing that every gun purchaser in every gun purchase - no exemptions - should be subject to a background check.
What makes it the right thing to do? Because you say so?
@GaoLu said:
One of the most powerful forces creating school shooters today is the attitudes expressed above, the actions of the Left and especially the liberal media. Especially by manipulated, abused, misguided children like David Hogg.Is there a more trusted source for objective analysis of social ills than Dana Loesch of the NRA?... Well, of course there is, but let's not let her lack of bona fides distract us from asking the question begged by the hypothetical of her being correct: Which is likely to inflict more carnage: A troubled person who wants his name to be spoken by media outlets WITH a gun, or a troubled person who wants his name to be spoken by media outlets WITHOUT one?
Of course again, this is the wrong question. This gun in this case was stolen. The gun in Parkland should never have been sold and gun control laws didn't work there. I could go on and on.
@C_M_ said:
Dana Loesch of the NRA is "out to lunch." Reporting the shooter's name is NOT encouraging new shooters. This is foolishness on its face. If anything, don't report the school shooting at all. Of course, this would make gun owners and the NRA happy campers. Children are dead! They didn't die of natural causes. There are grieving families.It does encourage new shooters actually.
Blame everybody or something else just don't point a finger at the NRA or guns. Everybody in the world is not like Mr. Trump's die-hard 40%ers. Some people can still think and connect the dots of reality.
How about you point the finger at the actual problem, the shooter. The guns didn't decide to go out and kill people, the NRA didn't go out and kill people so quit pointing your finger at those who are truly innocent.
Politicians and Christians (INO-In Name Only) who support the NRA should be ashamed of themselves! There are more regulations to securing a driver's license than there are purchasing and carrying a gun. How is this in a country who prides itself on law and order? When parents, lawmakers, governors, and the President failed to take measures to protect schoolhouses; the children's, blood would be on their hands.
Wow, so someone can't be a Christian and support the NRA? Good luck finding Scripture to support that. Shame on you. I agree that they have failed to protect school houses, but not because of lack of gun laws. There are plenty of other measures that would protect schools without infringing on the rights of citizens.
The NRA and the Second Amendment are not ordained of God. Put the children first America! CM
You can support the 2nd Amendment and protect children. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Don't let your emotions get the best of you. Think clearly.
-
CM> @reformed said:
The Democrats blame Republicans; Republicans blame the Democrats; parents blame the school; the school blames the state; the state blames the Department of Ed; the NRA said we are protecting your Second Amendment Rights, and a mother grieves. CM
Not sure what any of this poem has to do with this thread.
Reformed,
Consider the article below.
10 Terms You Need to Know to Understand Poetry by Edward Hirsch
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-hirsch-/10-terms-you-need-to-know_b_5153884.html
"Poetry is meant to inspire readers and listeners, to connect them more deeply to themselves even as it links them more fully to others. But many people feel put off by the terms of poetry, its odd vocabulary, its notorious difficulty. They may like or even love individual poems—they often seek them for ritual occasions, like weddings and funerals—but they nonetheless feel that poetry itself isn’t for them. They’ve been dispirited by their memories of school. I’ve always believed, however, that poetry goes well beyond the classroom and speaks to a wide variety of people in all kinds of circumstances. It delivers us to ourselves and helps us to live our lives. The terms of poetry—some simple, some complicated, some ancient, some new—should bring us closer to what we’re hearing, enlarging our experience of it, enabling us to describe what we’re reading, to feel and think with greater precision..."
So, Reformed, the meaning of poetry is an art and in the mind of the reader. Read the full article above may be helpful. If not, look beyond what's written and get what is not said. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
CM> @reformed said:The Democrats blame Republicans; Republicans blame the Democrats; parents blame the school; the school blames the state; the state blames the Department of Ed; the NRA said we are protecting your Second Amendment Rights, and a mother grieves. CM
Not sure what any of this poem has to do with this thread.
Reformed,
Consider the article below.
10 Terms You Need to Know to Understand Poetry by Edward Hirsch
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-hirsch-/10-terms-you-need-to-know_b_5153884.html
"Poetry is meant to inspire readers and listeners, to connect them more deeply to themselves even as it links them more fully to others. But many people feel put off by the terms of poetry, its odd vocabulary, its notorious difficulty. They may like or even love individual poems—they often seek them for ritual occasions, like weddings and funerals—but they nonetheless feel that poetry itself isn’t for them. They’ve been dispirited by their memories of school. I’ve always believed, however, that poetry goes well beyond the classroom and speaks to a wide variety of people in all kinds of circumstances. It delivers us to ourselves and helps us to live our lives. The terms of poetry—some simple, some complicated, some ancient, some new—should bring us closer to what we’re hearing, enlarging our experience of it, enabling us to describe what we’re reading, to feel and think with greater precision..."
So, Reformed, the meaning of poetry is an art and in the mind of the reader. Read the full article above may be helpful. If not, look beyond what's written and get what is not said. CM
I understand how poetry works, but your poem had nothing to do with the OP and is factually incorrect as I have already discussed.
-
@reformed said:
I understand how poetry works, but your poem had nothing to do with the OP and is factually incorrect as I have already discussed.
- It's not limited to the OP.
- If you still don't get it... Read it again, again, again. Some things are understood over time. Live, Live, live... CM
-
Once again, forum etiquette. Apparently, that is not existent on this site.
- If you still don't get it... Read it again, again, again. Some things are understood over time. Live, Live, live... CM
Who said I didn't get it?
-
I understand how poetry works, but your poem had nothing to do with the OP and is factually incorrect as I have already discussed.
- It's not limited to the OP.
Once again, forum etiquette. Apparently, that is not existent on this site.
Reformed,
Not this time! "The Real Problem With School Shootings" are guns. I don't agree with the premise. It's more of Republican talking points. "It is a heart issue, not a law issue." Again, I disagree. It's both and then some. Everyone that is bullied doesn't kill ten people and injured 13 others.
Besides, that is the Second Amendment? What does the NRA give to politicians to help the sales of guns? What is the work of the NRA lobbyists among lawmakers? Why is the NRA suing the State of Florida? Answer-- to influence guns laws. Why did NRA gave Mr. Trump's campaign $30 million dollars, because they like his hair?
The NRA, politicians, and the President have created an environment and impressions that more guns, large bullet magazines, and no background checks for owners. So much so they want to fund, legislate and supply funds and training to arm teachers.
If you still think I am wrong, and choose to wallow in your narrow view that "bullying" is the problem of school shootings, lay the blame squarely at the feet of your President (D. J.Trump). He's the biggest bully in the country. He modeled it perfectly and repeatedly, along with a few other immoral behaviors and words. Children are impressionable for the good or the ill. Do you recall his rallies?
For the briefest summary, due to appear in a future post, in another thread, for the "The Real Problem With School Shootings:"
- Environment
- Influence
- Politicians
- Guns
- Laws
- The truth about the Second Amendment
- Responsibility/accountability
- Courage
- Money
- In light of the OP, the Bully in Chief (Mr. Trump) is a big part of "The Real Problem With School Shootings."
@ CM said: 4. If you still don't get it... Read it again, again, again. Some things are understood over time. Live, Live, live... CM
@reformed said: Who said I didn't get it?
@reformed said: "... your poem had nothing to do with the OP and is factually incorrect as I have already discussed." I will not hold this against you. We learn at a different time and a different pace. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
I understand how poetry works, but your poem had nothing to do with the OP and is factually incorrect as I have already discussed.
- It's not limited to the OP.
Once again, forum etiquette. Apparently, that is not existent on this site.
Reformed,
Not this time! "The Real Problem With School Shootings" are guns. I don't agree with the premise. It's more of Republican talking points. "It is a heart issue, not a law issue." Again, I disagree. It's both and then some. Everyone that is bullied doesn't kill ten people and injured 13 others.
The problem is not the gun. It's the person. It doesn't matter if you accept that or not, it doesn't even matter if you agree with it, that's reality.
Besides, that is the Second Amendment? What does the NRA give to politicians to help the sales of guns? What is the work of the NRA lobbyists among lawmakers? Why is the NRA suing the State of Florida? Answer-- to influence guns laws. Why did NRA gave Mr. Trump's campaign $30 million dollars, because they like his hair?
Yes, the NRA seeks to protect the 2nd Amendment, what's the problem?
The NRA, politicians, and the President have created an environment and impressions that more guns, large bullet magazines, and no background checks for owners. So much so they want to fund, legislate and supply funds and training to arm teachers.
Ok, nobody has advocated for no background checks and we currently have background checks so I'm not sure why you put for false statements to try and bolster your position.
Why are you locked on large bullet magazines? Do you even know what kind of weapon was used in the last shooting?
If you still think I am wrong, and choose to wallow in your narrow view that "bullying" is the problem of school shootings, lay the blame squarely at the feet of your President (D. J.Trump). He's the biggest bully in the country. He modeled it perfectly and repeatedly, along with a few other immoral behaviors and words. Children are impressionable for the good or the ill. Do you recall his rallies?
Red Herring to the issue we are discussing, bullying was going on well before Donald Trump, though I agree I don't like his tactics.
For the briefest summary, due to appear in a future post, in another thread, for the "The Real Problem With School Shootings:"
- Environment
Agreed, but probably not for the same reason you will put forth.
- Influence
??
- Politicians
False
- Guns
Partially true, but only because they are the weapon used in a school shooting.
- Laws
False. Most of the time these school shootings would not have been impacted by new laws that are proposed and the ones that are on the books failed to stop them because they are not enforced or would not have applied because the gun was stolen.
- The truth about the Second Amendment
What does this even mean?
- Responsibility/accountability
??
- Courage
Courage is the real problem with school shootings? Explain.
- Money
??
- In light of the OP, the Bully in Chief (Mr. Trump) is a big part of "The Real Problem With School Shootings."
You can't honestly use this one because school shootings were happening before Trump. You just don't like the President and want so badly to blame him for this.
@ CM said: 4. If you still don't get it... Read it again, again, again. Some things are understood over time. Live, Live, live... CM
@reformed said: Who said I didn't get it?
@reformed said: "... your poem had nothing to do with the OP and is factually incorrect as I have already discussed." I will not hold this against you. We learn at a different time and a different pace. CM
My statement about your poem still stands. Nothing to do with the OP and not based in reality.
-
Stop calling that writing "poems." They are not poems, they are not even jingles. They are absurd senseless writing that mostly has little rhythm or rhyme. Such nonsense is an affront to literature and reveals the abject ignorance of anyone calling such a poem.
-
@GaoLu said:
Stop calling that writing "poems." They are not poems, they are not even jingles. They are absurd senseless writing that mostly has little rhythm or rhyme. Such nonsense is an affront to literature and reveals the abject ignorance of anyone calling such a poem.Good point.
-
@GaoLu said:
Stop calling that writing "poems." They are not poems, they are not even jingles. They are absurd senseless writing that mostly has little rhythm or rhyme. Such nonsense is an affront to literature and reveals the abject ignorance of anyone calling such a poem.GaoLu,
Thanks for your comments. In the eyes of the beholder, a thing is what one says it is. If one perceives something as nothing, why comment on something that's nothing?Besides, did the writer said his expression was a poem? Some may have perceived it as a poem and the writer may have responded as one has perceived it. I don't think the writer is upset. The writer expressed himself as you do.
I don't recall the writer receiving an award, wishing for one, nominated, paid or his expressions entered into some literature hall of fame, where standards are clearly outlined.
My question is what's the fear? Are you afraid I am getting away with something? Or are you just trying to get everyone to think and express themselves just like you?
Who are you trying to insult or put down with your:
"...Such nonsense is an affront to literature and reveals the abject ignorance of anyone calling such a poem."
Clearly, it's not the writer you are trying to insult. So, why try to put down a fellow CD User? Perhaps, you would have been more on point, if you only asked the writer if he thinks his expression is a poem. Until next time, when in doubt or uncertain about something, ask. Let press the reset button with a "Good morning! How are you today? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Stop calling that writing "poems." They are not poems, they are not even jingles. They are absurd senseless writing that mostly has little rhythm or rhyme. Such nonsense is an affront to literature and reveals the abject ignorance of anyone calling such a poem.GaoLu,
Thanks for your comments. In the eyes of the beholder, a thing is what one says it is. If one perceives something as nothing, why comment on something that's nothing?Besides, did the writer said his expression was a poem? Some may have perceived it as a poem and the writer may have responded as one has perceived it. I don't think the writer is upset. The writer expressed himself as you do.
Actually, you have called your writings poetry in other posts so yes, you have.
I don't recall the writer receiving an award, wishing for one, nominated, paid or his expressions entered into some literature hall of fame, where standards are clearly outlined.
????
My question is what's the fear? Are you afraid I am getting away with something? Or are you just trying to get everyone to think and express themselves just like you?
Who are you trying to insult or put down with your:
"...Such nonsense is an affront to literature and reveals the abject ignorance of anyone calling such a poem."
Clearly, it's not the writer you are trying to insult. So, why try to put down a fellow CD User? Perhaps, you would have been more on point, if you only asked the writer if he thinks his expression is a poem. Until next time, when in doubt or uncertain about something, ask. Let press the reset button with a "Good morning! How are you today? CM
Oh brother...
-
You are free to respond, but it nice to hear from GaoLu. Thanks. I remain. CM
