• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:2270] Does a Gun Make Your Home Safer?

more bullshit-the top one percent pay almost 40% of the federal income tax and all the federal death tax
The left makes a habit, a policy, of lying to the public because the facts are not with them.
If you want to raise taxes be honest about it. The rich pay 40% of the federals income tax but the nation needs them to do more. They can afford a 1,2,3,- 5% increase in their federal taxes and we are asking that they do this to help the country. In return the government needs to pass balanced budget legislation, rewrite the tax code to prevent the deductions the rich can take to avoid taxes and the ways they can shield money in foreign accounts.
Stop wasting money on foolish pet projects, stop lying about fossil fuels and wind/solar and protect the citizens from crime and criminals instead of protecting the criminals. This country is messed up but it's the politicians that are causing it by protecting the wrong people.
 
Ask for money specifically to fortify our schools and protect our kids. Stop worrying about teaching 3rd graders about transgender transitioning and protect them from shooters who intend to kill them.
Spend tax payer dollars on protecting the tax payers and their kids first.
Get back to God, talk to your neighbors. Get involved in community activities. Don't allow lyourself to be isolated.
 
An NPR article highlighting this statistic has been shared frequently on social media. The headline, "27 school shootings have taken place so far this year," probably gave many readers the impression that gun-related killings in schools have been especially high this year, even before Uvalde. Naturally, the prospect of 26 other previously unnoticed mass shooting events in schools should provoke alarm. It should also raise eyebrows.

The problem here is that three very differently defined terms are being used somewhat incautiously and interchangeably: school shooting, mass shooting, and mass school shooting. Uvalde was a mass school shooting; the 26 previous tragedies at schools this year were not.


The difference is significant. Education Week, which tracks all school shootings, defines them as incidents in which a person other than the suspect suffers a bullet wound on school property. Many of the 26 previous shootings involved disputes between students in parking lots, or after athletic events, and all of them resulted in one or zero deaths. These deaths are still incredibly tragic, of course. But they are fundamentally unlike what happened in Uvalde.

Uvalde is a mass school shooting. This is defined in different ways too: an incident in which at least four people (some counters make it three) are shot and/or killed. The Gun Violence Archive counts incidents in which at least four people were shot. Under this definition, many incidents of street crime and domestic violence count as mass shootings, even if no deaths result. A stricter tally of mass school shootings, conducted by criminologists for Scientific American, only includes incidents where the shootings resulted in at least four deaths. Using their criteria, the number of mass school shootings in the U.S. since the year 1966 is 13. These crimes claimed the lives of 146 people in total.

Obviously, 13 incidents in the last 56 years is a very different statistic than 27 incidents in the last few months. The two figures are so far apart because they measure separate things. One-off gun incidents are a serious problem in the U.S., and those taking place at schools are no exception. Mass casualty events, on the other hand, constitute less than 1 percent of all gun deaths. Suicides and non–mass-casualty murders—usually carried out with handguns rather than assault rifles—constitute the overwhelming majority of gun crimes.

Given the sheer horror of the violence in Uvalde this week, it's understandable that the public is interested in ensuring that such a thing never happens again. But for the policy debate to be fruitful, people need to understand the actual contours of the problem.

Until we honestly discuss what is happening and what is or isn't a mass school shooting or not even a school shooting per se, we will not come to a consensus on what we need to do.
Politics can't be the guide post.
 
Data shows guns do not make you safer; and increase the odds of a bad outcome in the home.

Guns are shit.
Data shows what the person doing the study wants it to show if they have a partisan position. Only independent, totally unbiased studies are worth looking at. There is plenty of date that supports gun ownership for preventing crime but the left ignores it and the right will ignore the lefts one sided studies. The standard for what is a mass shooting, or a school shooting don't have a standard that either side goes by in the same manner.
 
The study that the NEJM cites was long ago shown to be just more leftist garbage. An anti-gun group created a very narrow set of criteria that did not include defensive uses of firearms where shots were not fired and it was conducted in 3 high crime areas in 3 cities. They often also cite the Bangalor/Messerli study that selected data from 27 handpicked countries. Their data indicated that there wa s apositive correlation between total gun ownership and gun violence (while not delineating from the criminal ownership of firearms and legal ownership of firearms). They convieniently ignore the other finding from that study...that there was only a borderline correlative indicator when it came to mental illness (which debunks the next part of their claims...which is...)

Of course the anti gun left doubles down by including suicide rates as they repeat the same ridiculous studies that claim that if you remove firearms you remove the total number of suicides. They cite this while ignoring the FACT that the suicide rates in Japan went UP after firearms were banned, the suicide rates in Australia and England had no change. Huh...turns out that people committed to kill themselves manage to pull it off, whether it is by shooting themselves or it is by hanging themselves in a closet....the UKs preferred method, or by poisoning, jumping from tall buildings, or stepping in front of fast moving trains...all utilized in Japan. Thats why when Harvard and Standford and other researchers begin talking suicide and firearms, they keep that research based solely on US figures.

This has all been done to death. Numbers dont lie...researchers and statisticians do.
Suicides will still happen but by some other method.
 
those who want a socialist collectivist government also want to disarm people to help achieve it

Those who want a fascist corporatocracy want to arm every goose-stepper that wears the armband to achieve it.
 
Those who want a fascist corporatocracy want to arm every goose-stepper that wears the armband to achieve it.
except that is stupid. democrat gun ban schemes would leave the government agents armed. the right's plans allow every lawful citizen to be armed-including the far left mid left and ninny left
 
except that is stupid. democrat gun ban schemes would leave the government agents armed. the right's plans allow every lawful citizen to be armed-including the far left mid left and ninny left

You really think an armed citizenry can win a standoff against the US govt? You make no sense. Your POV is fallacy.
 
Studies show a gun in the house increase the chances of residents being shot.
 
Back
Top Bottom