There really aren't many happening in the U.S. You statistically have as good a chance of being struck by lightning as a kid does of being killed in a school shooting rampage.

Media just takes off with it. But like I said.....out of 7 million kids 19 or younger living in the U.S. in 2020 a whopping 10 of them were killed in school shootings. Obviously that number is higher in 2022 as a result of recent events, but still a very low number relative to the massive population in the U.S.

The VAST majority of gun homicides takes place on the streets, usually involving gangs or criminals in general. And usually involving illegally owned guns..

Wrong, as example in 2018 0 (zero) people under 22 died of lightning strike in US. While school shootings killed 37.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on May 25 2022 11:03pm

Weird how you pick the year most students were virtual schooling to represent school shootings overall

Searching for someone to blame other than the perpetrator is one of the recurring themes of these incidents.
If the police hadn't held back parents and waited 40 minutes before breaching, what would the difference have been? He was barricaded in a room with people he had already killed. It doesn't take 40 minutes for the gunman to kill people. If a bunch of unarmed parents had tried to bang on the door and windows, maybe we'd have another 1-2 casualties. Nobody knew if there were any hostages- there weren't- but they knew he could have killed everyone in the room if he wanted to. If there had been hostages, then the gunman thinking he was being stormed might trigger him to shoot the hostages. All they knew as they staged is that the gunfire wasn't ongoing and it was a barricaded suspect. Criticizing them for not blindly storming in the front at that point is some true armchair quarterbacking

and I don't think we know anything at all about the initial encounter between the school officer and the guy, whether gunfire was actually exchanged or whether he tried to stop him at all or whether he ran and hid. That part isn't detailed yet afaik

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 25 2022 11:51pm

Uvalde spends 40% of its budget on the police department and has a SWAT team. Why are they paying for this if they're going to sit back and wait for the federal government to solve their problems instead?

Police need those weapons in case they have to break into a house and shoot the occupants without knocking first.

They can simply NOT handle facts. But this was a nice one.

1. Yes that is my opinion based on the facts presented and my understanding of how America works (this is not taking sides but rather acknowledging a situation).
2. No change means (in my opinion) that AT BEST little or ineffective new laws but MORE LIKELY no new laws and the continued defense of gun rights. Ultimately from what I have seen on this issue in the long term the position is only going one way (more guns).
3. You can have a variety of polls but ultimately (again, in my opinion) at the end of the day polls dont write law. There are too many vested interests at the political level for things to change.

To answer your question " if "a lot of americans" did NOT like guns and the NRA, let's say a solid majority, would that change your opinion?" my answer is : No. The reason why I say no is because ultimately the majority you speak of needs to reside within the political spectrum, and to my understanding said majority does not (and will not) exist in the political spectrum. I have no problem being wrong on this, and it would be great if someone could refute what I am saying.

Even if you banned the NRA, and the money they pay(directly or indirectly) people/politicians to further their mutual interests, it would still persist. What would need to happen is a change in the NRA throughout the most senior levels of the organization whereby they acknowledged and agreed that certain restrictions were required, for the betterment of the country (This is of course, a pipe dream).

This post was edited by ferdia on May 26 2022 03:22am

so you ignored the scientific source i provided and instead selectively quoted a vox article (predictably ignoring the countless times it acknowledges racial motivation, nixon specifically targeting minorities, focusing on the law enforcement side due to political motivations, the extreme racial bias in its implementation despite similar drug use...), outright ignored reagan's escalating role (crack v. powder sentencing, mandatory minimum), and simplistically concluded that somehow proves that the war on drugs, criminalising and locking up large swathes of the population, particularly minorities (again, despite very similar drug usage numbers amongst races), is somehow just, and not a sign of a lack of freedom? that's borderline insane.



yup, normal, nothing to see but #freedom
USA finally #1
so glad guns prevent a tyrannical government from locking away more people than any other country in the history of mankind, totally worth the dead kids... oh wait!

low prison population so you have bodies to fight all the wars you have?

fukn laughable leftie frauds virtue signal when all the rest of the time they looking at skin color