Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.I don't think history supports that conclusion. Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today. We've had mass killings for a long time. They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment. There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders. There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others. IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.
I don't think history supports that conclusion. Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today. We've had mass killings for a long time. They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment. There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders. There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others. IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.I don't think history supports that conclusion. Charles Whitman, the 1963 Texas bell tower sniper, that was akin to what we see today. We've had mass killings for a long time. They're on the decline despite more firearms and more violent entertainment. There is no empirical evidence to suggest either lead to actual violence.
Nobody is happy with crazies killing innocents but it's reasonable to keep in mind that this kind of thing is exceedingly rare, less than one tenth of one percent of murders. There are ways to guard against such things without impeding on the rights of others. IMO, Free people making voluntary choices will respond the best way possible to deal with this kind of craziness.
Are you suggesting the murder, mass killings, and violent crime rates are increasing? That's just not the case. What YOU remember does not change the facts. We are a less violent society today than when you were a kid. Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda, but those are the facts.
No amount of discussion is going to help the next victims, fella. That said, it makes absolutely no sense to continue a full court press on "solutions" that have proven to be failures. That's the real problem with the discussion. It's always the same "solution", results be damned.
You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
Are you suggesting the murder, mass killings, and violent crime rates are increasing? That's just not the case. What YOU remember does not change the facts. We are a less violent society today than when you were a kid. Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda, but those are the facts.
Can we stop with the "your agenda " talk please. It is counterproductive and has no place in this forum.
We are adults , capable of addressing concerns without having an agenda.
Yes indeed, we are less violent in the past. Who cares? That isn't the issue we are discussing, we are contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners.
I would suggest that anyone who wishes to silence that discussion or silence discussing any potential fixes for said problem should probably be ignored. Absolutely NOTHING should be off the table, and just saying "lalala we're less violent than ever" isn't going to help the next victims one bit.
Are you suggesting the murder, mass killings, and violent crime rates are increasing? That's just not the case. What YOU remember does not change the facts. We are a less violent society today than when you were a kid. Sorry if that doesn't fit your agenda, but those are the facts.
Can we stop with the "your agenda " talk please. It is counterproductive and has no place in this forum.
We are adults , capable of addressing concerns without having an agenda.
Yes indeed, we are less violent in the past. Who cares? That isn't the issue we are discussing, we are contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners.
That's just not true. There has been no "shift" in who is getting murdered. PLENTY of mass school killings in the past:
As previously demonstrated, since the turn of the century, mass killings are down. When you state you are just "contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners", reality shows that's just not the case. Perhaps this is why some might think you have an agenda???
- Edward Charles Allaway - 1976 - killed seven students in California
- Brenda Ann Spencer - 1979 - killed 2 teachers, 8 students shot in California
- Patrick Edward Purdy - 1989 - killed 5 kids, one teacher and shot 29 other children in California
- James Oliver Huberty - 1984 - killed 21, many students, at a McDonalds in California
- Marc Lepine - 1989 - killed 10 students in Montreal, Canada
- Gang Lu - 1991 - killed for students and one other in Iowa
- Eric Houston - 1992 - killed three students, one teacher and shot 10 others in California
- Thomas Hamilton - 1996 - killed 17 in Scotland
I would suggest that anyone who wishes to silence that discussion or silence discussing any potential fixes for said problem should probably be ignored. Absolutely NOTHING should be off the table, and just saying "lalala we're less violent than ever" isn't going to help the next victims one bit.
I'm happy to talk about what we can do to prevent mass killings. I just won't doing under a false pretext. You shouldn't either.
Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.You know I have lived in this nation since I was born in 1960, and I remember it never being this bad for our youth over the years in this way, and this especially so as is found in percentages of now, and to the bombardment we are experiencing in this nation to date, so there is no way that you can go back and mention a few bad instances that were few and far between in percentages of, in order to suggest that we are not really in that bad a shape these days, because you are wrong on that assumption or statement my friend, and everyone here knows it.
Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
Can we stop with the "your agenda " talk please. It is counterproductive and has no place in this forum.
We are adults , capable of addressing concerns without having an agenda.
Yes indeed, we are less violent in the past. Who cares? That isn't the issue we are discussing, we are contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners.
That's just not true. There has been no "shift" in who is getting murdered. PLENTY of mass school killings in the past:
As previously demonstrated, since the turn of the century, mass killings are down. When you state you are just "contemplating why the victims have shifted from say gang members to kindergartners", reality shows that's just not the case. Perhaps this is why some might think you have an agenda???
- Edward Charles Allaway - 1976 - killed seven students in California
- Brenda Ann Spencer - 1979 - killed 2 teachers, 8 students shot in California
- Patrick Edward Purdy - 1989 - killed 5 kids, one teacher and shot 29 other children in California
- James Oliver Huberty - 1984 - killed 21, many students, at a McDonalds in California
- Marc Lepine - 1989 - killed 10 students in Montreal, Canada
- Gang Lu - 1991 - killed for students and one other in Iowa
- Eric Houston - 1992 - killed three students, one teacher and shot 10 others in California
- Thomas Hamilton - 1996 - killed 17 in Scotland
I would suggest that anyone who wishes to silence that discussion or silence discussing any potential fixes for said problem should probably be ignored. Absolutely NOTHING should be off the table, and just saying "lalala we're less violent than ever" isn't going to help the next victims one bit.
I'm happy to talk about what we can do to prevent mass killings. I just won't doing under a false pretext. You shouldn't either.
You're comparing six events in the US over a span of 20 years to 4 events in a 2 year time frame to prove that these incidents are not on the rise? That's disingenuous.
Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.
Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.I guess you have a faulty memory. Here's an interesting article on school shootings in just the Northeast during the 1940s and 1950s.
Concealed Carry Laws and School Safety: Evidence from the 1940s and 1950s «
Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then? Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago. In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago. This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
I've already conceded that you believe there is no problem, Amy. And that's fine.
But I'm sure you have no objection if those of us who aren't as certain as you are go ahead and discuss the topic. I am well aware of all the statistics you have posted. I have probably posted them myself in other contexts.
1929 for instance was during the height of prohibition and when mob violence related to that was at its highest. The mass killings involving competing mobsters were not comparable to the premeditated mass killings of innocents that the killers didn't know. These incidents are different than somebody shooting a teacher they got mad at. This has been pretty much a new phenomenon in more recent times and, in my opinion, has been escalating and occuring at a rate that merits attention.
I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.
Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.Yeah, most of those "eighteen articles" fall outside of what Lanza, et al, did. Some of them were accidents, one or two were plain murder and others were crime/gang related. Though one thing they all had in common was that there was only one victim. Not a whole class.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then? Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago. In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago. This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then? Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago. In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago. This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.
I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
Let's see your evidence that these weapons were in circulation to the extent you seem to believe they were and address the question of where the ammo came from to use them once in the US.Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then? Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago. In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago. This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.
Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...
Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.
I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.
Pure supposition.
Either way, many of the war trophies brought back from the campaign in Europe could hold over 30 rounds. MP40s, Sten guns and Thompson submachine guns were all in circulation, and could each hold over 30 rounds. Any of them would've had a devastating effect if emptied into a packed classroom.
I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.
I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.
Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.
How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.
Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?
