The CNN article breaks it out and shows their work. Only 2 of the 22 shootings really fall under someone walked into the school to cause mass casualties. The others appear to be people struck by bullets on school grounds or targetted attacks.What are they using to define a school shooting?
The situation is bad that a person would go into a school with the intent to shoot as many people as possible. If anti gunners are going to inflate stats by including any shooting that happened within 100 yards of a school and at any time of the day (2am), then it's difficult to take them serious.
OP edited his post. The original link was to the Wikipedia mass shootings page.The CNN article breaks it out and shows their work. Only 2 of the 22 shootings really fall under someone walked into the school to cause mass casualties. The others appear to be people struck by bullets on school grounds or targetted attacks.
Gotcha. They should really refine the criteria used to called something a school shooting though.OP edited his post. The original link was to the Wikipedia mass shootings page.
Yes it is. It’s Mario.This really is a tasteless title and thread content. That is all.
You may think the content is tasteless, but it’s one of the most effective ads we’ve seen in a long time.This really is a tasteless title and thread content. That is all.
Blaming Republicans for shootings is wrong. Maybe there should be an ad about the killings in Chicago.You may think the content is tasteless, but it’s one of the most effective ads we’ve seen in a long time.
And it makes the Republican Party look terrible. Terrible! 90% of the public want universal background checks and they’re blocking it. Trump and McConnell. If they don’t give in here, Republicans are going to get tossed out in a wave like nobody’s seen in a long time. The pressure is building.
I did not blame Republicans for shootings. Never have and never will.Blaming Republicans for shootings is wrong. Maybe there should be an ad about the killings in Chicago.
I disagree with about 30% of their platform, perhaps more.tim, the more you go along, the more you sound like a talking head for the DNC. I don't think there's one position on the party platform you haven't adopted.
Bravo!
Nut jobs will get guns no matter what.I did not blame Republicans for shootings. Never have and never will.
I am blaming Republicans for blocking reasonable , much needed federal laws like universal background checks. They are the culprits preventing this from happening.
The idea behind restrictive laws, as any law enforcement agent will tell you, is not to prevent crime but to make it more difficult. Universal background checks will make it more difficult for bad guys to get guns. Full stop.Nut jobs will get guns no matter what.
I would say so. I'd say that much, if true and the person being surveyed is aware of the entire program to implement and enforce, would certainly sound like ringing bipartisanship, yes. But the italicized is a huge caveat.I disagree with about 30% of their platform, perhaps more.
But this is a pretty easy one. 90% of the nation is a fairly bipartisan percentage, wouldn’t you say?
Indeed. Here is the House Bill on background checks that McConnell refuses to bring to a vote:I would say so. I'd say that much, if true and the person being surveyed is aware of the entire program to implement and enforce, would certainly sound like ringing bipartisanship, yes. But the italicized is a huge caveat.
This thread should be locked.This really is a tasteless title and thread content. That is all.
Why? That commercial is everywhere. It’s been featured on every news show today. And the people that made it deserve consideration.This thread should be locked.
What is the ad effecting? You admit that 90% of the public wants universal background checks. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that the GOP is dragging their feet on gun legislation. But, what is the byproduct of an ad like this? For parents, and more importantly school age children? Are we instilling fear, or advancing fears that may not have been, for the sake of political gain?You may think the content is tasteless, but it’s one of the most effective ads we’ve seen in a long time.
And it makes the Republican Party look terrible. Terrible! 90% of the public want universal background checks and they’re blocking it. Trump and McConnell. If they don’t give in here, Republicans are going to get tossed out in a wave like nobody’s seen in a long time. The pressure is building.
Not so much fear IMO but frustration. Specifically, political frustration with the Republican Party.What is the ad effecting? You admit that 90% of the public wants universal background checks. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that the GOP is dragging their feet on gun legislation. But, what is the byproduct of an ad like this? For parents, and more importantly school age children? Are we instilling fear, or advancing fears that may not have been, for the sake of political gain?
I heard this argument about a wall once. I think the conclusion was that if doesn't prevent it, why do it?The idea behind restrictive laws, as any law enforcement agent will tell you, is not to prevent crime but to make it more difficult. Universal background checks will make it more difficult for bad guys to get guns. Full stop.
You might have heard that argument, but not from me. My opposition to the wall is the message that it sends, both to Mexico and the rest of the world, is un-American: we don’t want you.I heard this argument about a wall once. I think the conclusion was that if doesn't prevent it, why do it?
Is it worth it? Especially if it causes trauma to children that have a very small chance of being involved in a school shooting.Not so much fear IMO but frustration. Specifically, political frustration with the Republican Party.
No. But I sense that, for the first time ever, this will be leading issue on the Democrat side (whereas in the past it’s only been a leading issue for a certain loud minority of Republicans.) And that will have a huge impact.Is it worth it? Especially if it causes trauma to children that have a very small chance of being involved in a school shooting.
Yes, 90% of the population wants background checks. That doesn't mean that 90% of the population is going to be an single issue voter, or will change their vote to one of the Dem candidates where they disagree with the rest of the platform.
Then I have to call hypocrite. I've heard over and over that we need gun reform to save the children for the terror of a mass shooter at their school. The terror is no longer coming from the shooters.No. But I sense that, for the first time ever, this will be leading issue on the Democrat side (whereas in the past it’s only been a leading issue for a certain loud minority of Republicans.) And that will have a huge impact.
OK I have no idea where you’re getting this. I want universal background checks to make it harder for mass shooters, sure. I want to ban AR-15s for the same reason, though that’s not on the table now and I doubt it will be. I don’t want to confiscate guns from their legal owners ever. I have no idea where the hypocrisy is in any of this.Then I have to call hypocrite. I've heard over and over that we need gun reform to save the children for the terror of a mass shooter at their school. The terror is no longer coming from the shooters.
You've also downplayed things in the other thread, stating that Beto is the outlier. If it becomes the leading issue, then the possibility of mandatory buybacks (or even confiscation) is a widespread possibility.
You can't be that blind. You want laws to protect children, but you're applauding ads that put fear into those same kids. That's hypocrisy.OK I have no idea where you’re getting this. I want universal background checks to make it harder for mass shooters, sure. I want to ban AR-15s for the same reason, though that’s not on the table now and I doubt it will be. I don’t want to confiscate guns from their legal owners ever. I have no idea where the hypocrisy is in any of this.
Oh. Those don't really count, right?The CNN article breaks it out and shows their work. Only 2 of the 22 shootings really fall under someone walked into the school to cause mass casualties. The others appear to be people struck by bullets on school grounds or targetted attacks.
That ad doesn’t expose kids to anything they weren’t previously aware of. In my state they’re getting active shooter training all the time. Who’s kidding who?You can't be that blind. You want laws to protect children, but you're applauding ads that put fear into those same kids. That's hypocrisy.
Sorry, you're wrong. Being aware of a mass shooting and putting an ad out that fuels fear are not the same. But, let's complain that mental health issues are on the rise.That ad doesn’t expose kids to anything they weren’t previously aware of. In my state they’re getting active shooter training all the time. Who’s kidding who?
Yes they have earthquake training and fire training. And active shooter training. Are you somehow suggesting they are only being given active shooter training for political reasons? Because that would be absurd.Sorry, you're wrong. Being aware of a mass shooting and putting an ad out that fuels fear are not the same. But, let's complain that mental health issues are on the rise.
Why do they need active shooter training all the time? Are they having earthquake training as frequently? Odds are, they are going to find themselves in an earthquake before an active shooter situation. Factor in California's strict gun laws, it would seem that the odds are even higher.
This is only one publications view on things however I'm sure you can Google more.What is the ad effecting? You admit that 90% of the public wants universal background checks. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know that the GOP is dragging their feet on gun legislation. But, what is the byproduct of an ad like this? For parents, and more importantly school age children? Are we instilling fear, or advancing fears that may not have been, for the sake of political gain?
I'm saying that it's done to induce fear. You admitted that it was for political reason. How are you not absurd?Yes they have earthquake training and fire training. And active shooter training. Are you somehow suggesting they are only being given active shooter training for political reasons? Because that would be absurd.
Again, what is the point of the ad? What are they hoping to accomplish?
No, active shooter training is not being done for political reasons. I never admitted that nor would I because it’s stupid. And its not being done to “induce fear”. I can’t believe you’re even writing this. It’s crazy. Active shooter training is done to save lives. It already has. I hate that it’s necessary.I'm saying that it's done to induce fear. You admitted that it was for political reason. How are you not absurd?
If school kids are given active shooter training 4 times a year and earthquake training once, then I would say that we are doing more damage than good.
That’s a separate concern, not a bigger concern. And it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.The bigger concern is that youth suicide rates are on the rise.
You're mixing the two things up. I think the ad is for political reason. You admitted that.No, active shooter training is not being done for political reasons. I never admitted that nor would I because it’s stupid. And its not being done to “induce fear”. I can’t believe you’re even writing this. It’s crazy. Active shooter training is done to save lives. It already has. I hate that it’s necessary.
In addition, for you to make a judgment about how many times active shooter training is done in comparison to earthquake training, without any knowledge or facts, is not only dumb but offensive IMO.
Says you. If you inundate kids with this type of ad and active shooter training, it may lead to increase in the suicide rate.That’s a separate concern, not a bigger concern. And it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
You’re repeating yourself. Nobody has said there is more active shooter training than earthquake training. That seems to be a big issue for you and it’s all in your mind.You're mixing the two things up. I think the ad is for political reason. You admitted that.
I understand active shooter training. It's the same as any other training. But, if you're doing more active shooter training than say, earthquake training, I would ask why? Do a search Tim, there are plenty of reports that active shooter training is doing more harm than good. Kids are saying they come out of it more traumatized than trained. If it's doing that type of damage, then why are we doing it that way?
OMG this is so wrong on so many levels.If you inundate kids with this type of ad and active shooter training, it may lead to increase in the suicide rate.
I suspect we are causing more damage than the active shooters are. If 50 students are killed by a shooter each year, we increase the fear in the rest of them through training and ads like this.
The more I think about this post, the more I’m convinced that there is no point in further discussion on this issue with you.Says you. If you inundate kids with this type of ad and active shooter training, it may lead to increase in the suicide rate.
I suspect we are causing more damage than the active shooters are. If 50 students are killed by a shooter each year, we increase the fear in the rest of them through training and ads like this.
Kids these days still have all of the issues we had growing up in the 60's-90's then throw in the threat of being murdered on a daily basis and cyber bullying.For the people who think the ad is over the line, you might want to self-reflect.
Again, you admit that it's political.You’re repeating yourself. Nobody has said there is more active shooter training than earthquake training. That seems to be a big issue for you and it’s all in your mind.
The effectiveness of active shooter training is probably based on the instructor and format. Law enforcement tells us it’s necessary. I wish it wasn’t. But I’m relieved my daughters have had it.
This isn’t political for me. It’s not some ####### game. I have a friend who lost her son in the Las Vegas shooting. I want universal background checks. The only way that’s going to happen, apparently, is to get the Republicans out of there. I didn’t create that situation. If the Republicans don’t want it to be political then they can change that any time by passing the law 90% of the public is demanding. If they don’t it’s on them, not on the good folks who made this commercial and certainly not on the good people who are giving our kids active shooter training. Just stop with these ridiculous arguments.
Sounds like we need more mental health care programs.Kids these days still have all of the issues we had growing up in the 60's-90's then throw in the threat of being murdered on a daily basis and cyber bullying.
I have a big, strong, "kid" that we had to hospitalize because he wanted to kill himself because life seems so hopeless. There was an almost 20 hour wait to admit him though because the unit was full of kids just like him. The nurses I talked to said it was always like that. I live in a large metropolitan area too so it isn't like this is the only hospital around. . The hopelessness in these kid's faces haunts me. I've been there more than I wanted including to bring my child to visit a female friend that is gay. Her religious parents have told her she is sick and going to hell so she has tried to kill herself on several occasions. Isn't even 16 yet.
So yeah, some of you people need to spend some time at your local juvenile crisis hospital for perspective more than "I believe".