Racism, Guns, Politics, Religion, etc...

[WVUPharm2007]

WVU has danced around the concept, but I don't think they've articulated or understood it, maybe.

It must be my obviously low IQ combined with my low morale from being so "embarrassed" by your clearly superior intellect.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA77]

How could it all be related?

I was looking for opinions on current policies in hospitals/pharmacies regarding firearms and if pharmacist felt safe with those policies or if they would like to have them changed. I'm not looking for policies for schools, outdoor events, or other public places unless you feel that they are related and what/if a pharmacist employer could do about it.

 

[deleted480308]

I was looking for opinions on current policies in hospitals/pharmacies regarding firearms and if pharmacist felt safe with those policies or if they would like to have them changed. I'm not looking for policies for schools, outdoor events, or other public places unless you feel that they are related and what/if a pharmacist employer could do about it.

there certainly shouldn't be any laws forbidding it, individual companies should not be required to allow it but I believe they should choose to allow it

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I was looking for opinions on current policies in hospitals/pharmacies regarding firearms and if pharmacist felt safe with those policies or if they would like to have them changed. I'm not looking for policies for schools, outdoor events, or other public places unless you feel that they are related and what/if a pharmacist employer could do about it.

As a 24 hour night shift pharmacist, I'm possibly the most likely to need that sort of protection. I'm alone, next to a safe with millions of dollars in narcotics, in the middle of the night. I wouldn't want to tell someone in my position they couldn't be armed if they felt they needed it. But in reality, it probably doesn't matter. If they know you don't have a gun, they still come with a gun. If policy changes and they know you might have a gun, they come at you with gun drawn and tell you to get down and they take your gun. Or maybe not. We're talking about junkies here, God knows what they'd do. Both situations suck. The time they tried to rob me, it was two of them. What am I going to do? Pull out my weapon and try to take them out when they have the upper hand? I ain't Rambo. Obviously*, everyone would rather be in a situation when bullets won't go flying. I'm not sure which situation would result in that outcome being more likely. If they know you don't have a gun, I'd imagine it would make them less jumpy. Of course, if it all went tits up, you'd rather have the gun. PERSONALLY, I want it to stay the way it is. I want them to know I'm unarmed and to know that brandishing their weapon isn't needed.

Either way, I'm giving them whatever they want so they'd GTFO ASAP. I ain't taking a bullet for CVS' oxycodones.


*I should note that violent psychopaths that want to get into this situation so they can shoot someone would not be included in this common sense answer. I don't want to assume anything. Or, heaven forbid, think that everyone sees things the same way as me. I'm told I have a problem with that. I accept that some people may want to be in this situation. Caveat noted and filed.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Again...this is common sense. Is your entire thing that I'm not spelling out to a "T" that I'm talking about normal civilians and just typed "people?" You are failing to convey to me how you are getting from point A to point B in this leap of logic that you made.

Now the war on drugs...that's a much more interesting issue...to me, anyway...because something positive might actually be done about that...




WTF are you talking about? You are making up nonsense. I'm talking about how the debate should primarily center around what is logical for people to own vs not own...and you invent some nonsense about how the cops shouldn't have it and that black people are being killed. You do understand that there is a difference between discussing something I actually typed and you having a psychotic break with reality and debating things you imagined I typed, right?



I told you...I'm not really interested in the gun debate because it is over. The only reason I typed that was because you were going off about your previous posts that I didn't read or really care about. I was just being honest...this thread is tl;dr for my attention span. I'm just replying to your replies to me. The funny thing is that I'd probably be on your side because I think that the entire thing is futile. I can't help it if I keep getting dragged in by some dude with poor reading comprehension and penchant for proclaiming he's "embarrassing" people in an online argument when he is just confused. I'll admit, watching you tilt at windmills is amusing, but it's starting to get old.

You say

"Me only wanna talk about X"

Me say

" Me understand you only want to talk about X.
It useless to talk only about X without discussing Y.
It intellectually dishonest to insist X can exist in a vacuum"


I'll agree to disagree with you.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I saw this on my Google Now feed:

If there is any truth to this, I retract my "NRA has already won" stance. If they get caught up in this Russia scandal, there will be a leadership vacuum for gun ownership rights. And left might actually get the gumption to take the current gun-ownership friendly interpretation of the second amendment head on.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I saw this on my Google Now feed:
If there is any truth to this, I retract my "NRA has already won" stance. If they get caught up in this Russia scandal, there will be a leadership vacuum for gun ownership rights. And left might actually get the gumption to take the current gun-ownership friendly interpretation of the second amendment head on.

While very interesting, they're about 43 years too late to stop the current "gun culture" in the US.
NPR had a great segment on the NRA last year interviewing the members who formed the ILA and overthrew the old guard (fudds) in the NRA.

The NRA didn't really start taking hard lines until the Hughes amendment passed, along with the FOPA, and then the ATF turning into a paramilitary death squad didn't help. (I do think white supremacists deserve death, but the government shouldn't be doing extrajudicial killings outside of the common practice rules of engagement)


Thus began the modern movement of gun ownership.

On a purely personal observation, in most circles I see online, the NRA is perceived as too accommodating and passive, if you can believe that.

That's part of the problem the American left has with winning this key issue.
They're jousting with the ghost of an organization that stopped being socially relevant in the 2000s.

 

[Modest_anteater]

"Smith & Wesson Gun Sales Are in Free Fall" bankruptcy could happen by the end of the year.

Assault rifle bans being submitted in congress

NRA being dropped by major corps.

It's finally happening guys.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

"Smith & Wesson Gun Sales Are in Free Fall" bankruptcy could happen by the end of the year.

Assault rifle bans being submitted in congress

NRA being dropped by major corps.

It's finally happening guys.

How's the source coming on any suicide data after 2010?

 

[Modest_anteater]

How's the source coming on any suicide data after 2010?

It's propitiatory data from my friend that is an actuary at MetLife.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It's propitiatory data from my friend that is an actuary at MetLife.

How convenient

 

[owlegrad]

Sorry, old bookmarks.
They're all behind paywalls now.

The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation


EDIT:

Found the 2004 one, but haven't had a chance to review it to make sure Feinstein didn't have her people alter it

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2mo_yEPzCIcp-84w5v-igA

I mean without trying to get too far into the weeds on the details I think this quote pretty much sums it up:

1. The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed

To offer this as "proof" that the ban on certain types of weapons was pointless seems disingenuous. I appreciate that the source isn't hopelessly biased but the report doesn't make the conclusion that you seem to think it does.

Disclaimer: This is only a partial quotation of a much longer document and therefor is totally invalid and malicious on my part.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I mean without trying to get too far into the weeds on the details I think this quote pretty much sums it up:

To offer this as "proof" that the ban on certain types of weapons was pointless seems disingenuous. I appreciate that the source isn't hopelessly biased but the report doesn't make the conclusion that you seem to think it does.

Disclaimer: This is only a partial quotation of a much longer document and therefor is totally invalid and malicious on my part.

As I've said in other parts of SDN, I don't own an AR-15, plan to ever, and don't really care about them.

But they only cause at most a few hundred (last I heard) of our 11,000 firearm homicides every year. That's not a big difference to ban a gun that probably hundred's of thousands of people own.

 

[Modest_anteater]

As I've said in other parts of SDN, I don't own an AR-15, plan to ever, and don't really care about them.

But they only cause at most a few hundred (last I heard) of our 11,000 firearm homicides every year. That's not a big difference to ban a gun that probably hundred's of thousands of people own.

I mean without trying to get too far into the weeds on the details I think this quote pretty much sums it up:

To offer this as "proof" that the ban on certain types of weapons was pointless seems disingenuous. I appreciate that the source isn't hopelessly biased but the report doesn't make the conclusion that you seem to think it does.

Disclaimer: This is only a partial quotation of a much longer document and therefor is totally invalid and malicious on my part.

How Australia All But Ended Gun Violence

 

[owlegrad]

As I've said in other parts of SDN, I don't own an AR-15, plan to ever, and don't really care about them.

But they only cause at most a few hundred (last I heard) of our 11,000 firearm homicides every year. That's not a big difference to ban a gun that probably hundred's of thousands of people own.

How many people have to be saved for it to be worth banning them?

Or as a counter argument, what is the point in permitting them to be sold considering they are ever used to murder children?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I mean without trying to get too far into the weeds on the details I think this quote pretty much sums it up:

To offer this as "proof" that the ban on certain types of weapons was pointless seems disingenuous. I appreciate that the source isn't hopelessly biased but the report doesn't make the conclusion that you seem to think it does.

Disclaimer: This is only a partial quotation of a much longer document and therefor is totally invalid and malicious on my part.

Yeah, and that's fair.

if you were to get into the nitty gritty, you'd notice that their specific wording of "criminal use" and not "violent crime" is very intentional.

From a national standpoint, it's clear to literally anyone that there is a clear downward trend in total violence AND murders.

There was no change in this trend at all in the 1990s through 2000s.

The *really* interesting part is that the downward trend in the US nearly matches the downward trend in the wealthy European and also muh Australia.

How Australia All But Ended Gun Violence

I'm one meme-argument away from winning gun control bingo

 

[deleted480308]

How many people have to be saved for it to be worth banning them?

Or as a counter argument, what is the point in permitting them to be sold considering they are ever used to murder children?

No amount ofcrime reduction, even if it could be proved would be worth a ban

 

[owlegrad]

No amount ofcrime reduction, even if it could be proved would be worth a ban

Why? What value does the ban have that out ways the value of human life?

 

[owlegrad]

I'm one meme-argument away from winning gun control bingo

Has anyone brought up how muskets are to modern guns as quills are to the printing press (or internet)? That's one of my personal favorites.

 

[deleted480308]

Why? What value does the ban have that out ways the value of human life?

First, I don’t think a reduction in biolent crime is proven

Second, murder is still illegal

Third, freedom is absolutely more important than promises of safety that may or may not end up being true

Fourth, we shouldn’t impede on innocent gun owners because some people misuse guns

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

How Australia All But Ended Gun Violence

If you look at their overall homicide rate since then, its barely twitched. It was 1.6 per 100,000 the year of their mass shooting that lead to the ban. Last year it was 1.0 per 100,000. That's not a huge difference. Heck, our rate when down more than their's (from 7 per 100,000 in 1993 (before our assault weapon ban) to 3.5 in 2016). We got a 50% reduction. They only got 37.5%.

Now admittedly our number is firearm homicides while their's is total homicides. I'll see if I can find info on our total homicide rate.

Edit: Our total homicide rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000, in 2016 it was 5.4 for a difference of 43%. Still better than their 37.5%

 

[owlegrad]

First, I don’t think a reduction in biolent crime is proven

Second, murder is still illegal

Third, freedom is absolutely more important than promises of safety that may or may not end up being true

Fourth, we shouldn’t impede on innocent gun owners because some people misuse guns

Well the premise of your statement was "even if it saves lives it still wouldn't be worth it" so I am going to skip your first point.

Your second point is true. All illegal behaviors are illegal so no argument there.

Your third point is where I *think* the crux of your argument lies. As a value statement it cannot be true or false, it is a belief not a fact. We can agree to disagree. You value the freedom to own an AR (whose utility I am still unsure of, except as a means to kill lots of people quickly), I value human life, especially innocent school children.

Your fourth point is salient and I actually agree with you. In a perfect world we could prevent bad murders from owning guns and lawful gun owns could continue to own whatever types of guns they want. Since we live in an imperfect world I think the best we can do is try to prevent as many murders as possible. Banning the best weapons to kill lots of people quickly seems like the best place to start, to me.

"If it works in other countries it must work here too!"

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

How many people have to be saved for it to be worth banning them?

Or as a counter argument, what is the point in permitting them to be sold considering they are ever used to murder children?

That's a fair question, at least your first one. I don't have a good answer to that. I personally would rather increase the security of schools. Of all the legally mandated gun-free zones, they are the least protected. There are a few reasons why no one shoots up airports, courthouses, and statehouses. The main one is that they have good security. Schools do not.

The second isn't quite true. There was an article earlier this week where a guy in Chicago used his AR-15 to foil a knife robbery. The Texas church shooter was stopped by a guy with an AR-15 as well. I'd be surprised if there weren't more but I'm no expert.

 

[owlegrad]

That's a fair question, at least your first one. I don't have a good answer to that. I personally would rather increase the security of schools. Of all the legally mandated gun-free zones, they are the least protected. There are a few reasons why no one shoots up airports, courthouses, and statehouses. The main one is that they have good security. Schools do not.

The second isn't quite true. There was an article earlier this week where a guy in Chicago used his AR-15 to foil a knife robbery. The Texas church shooter was stopped by a guy with an AR-15 as well. I'd be surprised if there weren't more but I'm no expert.

Well sure, I mean he literally brought a knife to a gun fight. Of course it worked out if favor of the guy with the AR.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Well sure, I mean he literally brought a knife to a gun fight. Of course it worked out if favor of the guy with the AR.

But the other guy brought an AR to an AR fight...

 

[deleted480308]

Well the premise of your statement was "even if it saves lives it still wouldn't be worth it" so I am going to skip your first point.

Your second point is true. All illegal behaviors are illegal so no argument there.

Your third point is where I *think* the crux of your argument lies. As a value statement it cannot be true or false, it is a belief not a fact. We can agree to disagree. You value the freedom to own an AR (whose utility I am still unsure of, except as a means to kill lots of people quickly), I value human life, especially innocent school children.

Your fourth point is salient and I actually agree with you. In a perfect world we could prevent bad murders from owning guns and lawful gun owns could continue to own whatever types of guns they want. Since we live in an imperfect world I think the best we can do is try to prevent as many murders as possible. Banning the best weapons to kill lots of people quickly seems like the best place to start, to me.

"If it works in other countries it must work here too!"

Part of the point of an AR15 is that you can fight a number of people with it....that’s why we should still be able to have it.

The main premise of the 2nd amendment is being able to resist oppression from a tyrannical govt....that means the right to own capable weaponry

 

[Modest_anteater]

Part of the point of an AR15 is that you can fight a number of people with it....that’s why we should still be able to have it.

The main premise of the 2nd amendment is being able to resist oppression from a tyrannical govt....that means the right to own capable weaponry

The 2nd amendment is to fight against the government. You aren't going to do that with small arms. You need anti aircraft artillery and tanks. The intent when the 2nd amendment was written wasn't for people to have machine guns for personal safety from other people.

 

[Modest_anteater]

If you look at their overall homicide rate since then, its barely twitched. It was 1.6 per 100,000 the year of their mass shooting that lead to the ban. Last year it was 1.0 per 100,000. That's not a huge difference. Heck, our rate when down more than their's (from 7 per 100,000 in 1993 (before our assault weapon ban) to 3.5 in 2016). We got a 50% reduction. They only got 37.5%.

Now admittedly our number is firearm homicides while their's is total homicides. I'll see if I can find info on our total homicide rate.

Edit: Our total homicide rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000, in 2016 it was 5.4 for a difference of 43%. Still better than their 37.5%

Australia has had ZERO mass shootings since they cracked down on machine gun ownership.

 

[zelman]

No amount ofcrime reduction, even if it could be proved would be worth a ban

Really? A world without crime altogether isn’t worth it?

 

[deleted480308]

The 2nd amendment is to fight against the government. You aren't going to do that with small arms. You need anti aircraft artillery and tanks. The intent when the 2nd amendment was written wasn't for people to have machine guns for personal safety from other people.

Rifles have been doing quite well fighting large govts for the last 50yrs

 

[deleted480308]

Really? A world without crime altogether isn’t worth it?

A world without crime? Are we being imaginary here?

You might as well say that we have to ban AR15s because it’s the only way the unicorns will raise atlantis back out of the ocean

I’m saying no amount of reduction that could be reasonably proven/expected would be worth it

 

[owlegrad]

Part of the point of an AR15 is that you can fight a number of people with it....that’s why we should still be able to have it.

The main premise of the 2nd amendment is being able to resist oppression from a tyrannical govt....that means the right to own capable weaponry

I guess I can't really dispute your first point. As a matter of values I think your ability to fight of a number of people is less valuable than the lives of innocent people killed by that instrument, but I concede that it is possible that you will be ganged up by a number of people with no innocent by standards around you could accidentally kill and would be well within your rights to kill them all within seconds. I still think banning them is worth the potential children saved but you are right that it is possible to need to kill a large group of people quickly.

Your second point is so disingenuous that I don’t know how you make it with a straight face. Do you really believe it? First of all really think about how terrifying that sentiment is. Will you be fighting off your state and local police as well or simply the entire US military? And how exactly is your AR going to protect you from a military drone strike?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Australia has had ZERO mass shootings since they cracked down on machine gun ownership.

Yep, but their rate of people murdered has decreased less than ours in the same time period.

I mean, would you be OK banning guns if our gun homicide rate went to zero but our overall homicide rate increased? Because that's what you seem to be unwittingly suggesting.

 

[deleted480308]

I guess I can't really dispute your first point. As a matter of values I think your ability to fight of a number of people is less valuable than the lives of innocent people killed by that instrument, but I concede that it is possible that you will be ganged up by a number of people with no innocent by standards around you could accidentally kill and would be well within your rights to kill them all within seconds. I still think banning them is worth the potential children saved but you are right that it is possible to need to kill a large group of people quickly.

Your second point is so disingenuous that I don’t know how you make it with a straight face. Do you really believe it? First of all really think about how terrifying that sentiment is. Will you be fighting off your state and local police as well or simply the entire US military? And how exactly is your AR going to protect you from a military drone strike?

You can’t at all be aware of recent world events and say that motivated resistance with rifles can’t put up a fight

And I’m not online offering to fight anyone, I’m saying that it is vitally important that Americans have the right to seek arms for the express purpose of being able to fight back

Our own nation’s history is too rife with govt abuse to pretend that is beyond consideration

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Your second point is so disingenuous that I don’t know how you make it with a straight face. Do you really believe it? First of all really think about how terrifying that sentiment is. Will you be fighting off your state and local police as well or simply the entire US military? And how exactly is your AR going to protect you from a military drone strike?

Single-handedly? Not super effective. If these 100,000 people all resisted, maybe things like this wouldn't have happened

 

[owlegrad]

Single-handedly? Not super effective. If these 100,000 people all resisted, maybe things like this wouldn't have happened

A fair point. So in your alternate history the Japanese-Americans were armed during World War II and put up resistance to internment. Then what? They overthrew the American government? Or did the police or military kill any of them who resisted?

 

[deleted480308]

A fair point. So in your alternate history the Japanese-Americans were armed during World War II and put up resistance to internment. Then what? They overthrew the American government? Or did the police or military kill any of them who resisted?

I’m sure a lot of them and a lot of the police would have died...or maybe the govt realized they couldn’t pull it off without thousands dead and they back down

But the notion of the japanese americans fighting back only causes handwringing because 70yrs later we know they got released. At the time, they had no guarantee they wouldn’t end up like the jews in europe

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I’m sure a lot of them and a lot of the police would have died...or maybe the govt realized they couldn’t pull it off without thousands dead and they back down

But the notion of the japanese americans fighting back only causes handwringing because 70yrs later we know they got released. At the time, they had no guarantee they wouldn’t end up like the jews in europe

You beat me to it. By the time they were captured, Anne Frank's family knew exactly what was going to happen to them. Might have been nice if they'd been able to take a handful of Germans to the Grave with them

 

[owlegrad]

I’m sure a lot of them and a lot of the police would have died...or maybe the govt realized they couldn’t pull it off without thousands dead and they back down

But the notion of the japanese americans fighting back only causes handwringing because 70yrs later we know they got released. At the time, they had no guarantee they wouldn’t end up like the jews in europe

True.

Although a counter argument would be that the second amendment existed 70 years ago and did NOT prevent that human right travesty so perhaps it isn't that effective at preventing government over-reach. Perhaps the real point of guns isn't to keep the government in check, perhaps that is why we have a representative democracy.

 

[deleted480308]

True.

Although a counter argument would be that the second amendment existed 70 years ago and did NOT prevent that human right travesty so perhaps it isn't that effective at preventing government over-reach. Perhaps the real point of guns isn't to keep the government in check, perhaps that is why we have a representative democracy.

Or you could ask yourself if a govt got that out of hand with a populace that had access to firearms, what horror could they drop on an unarmed one

Even if those Americans decided not to fight, they have a natural right to seek the means to do so

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Re: "How are you going to fight the government?"

See entry: Battle of Athens

Realize how tiny the scale of that encounter was.

I guess I can't really dispute your first point. As a matter of values I think your ability to fight of a number of people is less valuable than the lives of innocent people killed by that instrument, but I concede that it is possible that you will be ganged up by a number of people with no innocent by standards around you could accidentally kill and would be well within your rights to kill them all within seconds. I still think banning them is worth the potential children saved but you are right that it is possible to need to kill a large group of people quickly.

Your second point is so disingenuous that I don’t know how you make it with a straight face. Do you really believe it? First of all really think about how terrifying that sentiment is. Will you be fighting off your state and local police as well or simply the entire US military? And how exactly is your AR going to protect you from a military drone strike?

"Muh drone strike"

B I N G O​

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

The real argument that no one is addressing here is that the right to have arms is inexorably linked to the most basic right to be alive.

"I have the right to not die, therefore I have the right to prevent you from harming me, therefore I have a right to implements to defend myself"

 

[owlegrad]

"Muh drone strike"

B I N G O​

I am going to drink every time you put ‘muh’ In front of something as if that invalidates it.

Congrats on bingo though.

The real argument that no one is addressing here is that the right to have arms is inexorably linked to the most basic right to be alive.

"I have the right to not die, therefore I have the right to prevent you from harming me, therefore I have a right to implements to defend myself"

I don’t think anyone disputes that. Isn’t the issue where to draw the line? Unless you are trying to assert that there should be no restrictions at all, which I think is very unlikely.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I am going to drink every time you put ‘muh’ In front of something as if that invalidates it.

Congrats on bingo though.



I don’t think anyone disputes that. Isn’t the issue where to draw the line? Unless you are trying to assert that there should be no restrictions at all, which I think is very unlikely.

Muh drinking game

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I am going to drink every time you put ‘muh’ In front of something as if that invalidates it.

Congrats on bingo though.

I don’t think anyone disputes that. Isn’t the issue where to draw the line? Unless you are trying to assert that there should be no restrictions at all, which I think is very unlikely.

Nah, but for real tho.
I think that the line should be drawn at a point supported by evidence.
If no robust evidence is available, the line should at least not be drawn in direct contradiction of the available data.

The is no objective reason or data to support a ban scary looking rifles over handguns.
No one can argue that. It is a simple fact.

We are thinking, reasonable citizens, and I'm not a journalist, so why do we think legislation should be based on ratings grabbers?

It may be callous, but I'll say It.

School shootings are irrelevant symptoms of a social problem.
What changed in 1999?
Something snapped in our society and hasn't healed.
It isn't guns or their availability.

Why is it that the deadliest, scariest weapons are the least likely to be used in crimes?
It's a really bizarre, important question.

 

[zelman]

A world without crime? Are we being imaginary here?

You might as well say that we have to ban AR15s because it’s the only way the unicorns will raise atlantis back out of the ocean

I’m saying no amount of reduction that could be reasonably proven/expected would be worth it

That’s what’s you’re meaning, not what you’re saying. They are very different statements.

 

[owlegrad]

School shootings are irrelevant symptoms of a social problem.
What changed in 1999?
Something snapped in our society and hasn't healed.
It isn't guns or their availability.

Personally I think it is that they took prayer out of schools.

BINGO baby!

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Personally I think it is that they took prayer out of schools.
BINGO baby!

 

[beautifulrobot]

why SDN have no sad react?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

They've been around longer than 1999:
List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

That list has some drawbacks...like some of them are adults that shot up a school...but kids taking a gun to school and shooting the place up has been a thing for a while longer than 19 years. The first spree shooting I can identify is in Texas in 1966. NY in 1974. A kid on the rifle team. Imagine if that kid had an AR-15...whew. 1979, a 16 year old in California lost her mind. 1985, Detroit. 1986 Montana. And then they start to become more and more frequent until the fever pitch of today. And it doesn't take long to identify some cases with a lot of injuries that could have been worse if they students had better weapons available to them.

But today vs yesteryear there appear to me to be a few differences...on average there are more victims per incident...they are more frequent (though simple population increases may explain part of that)...and the 24 hour news cycle has just made them seem more common today than in the past...