That will be great if your position (what is your position?) is supported.
The sheriff has corrected his earlier misstatement. It was a second grade teacher and not a second grader.
Is it? I've seen a chart somewhere that identified this as the 83rd school shooting for 2024. While that certainly might be inaccurate, that tweet is not the only time I've seen 83 school shootings for 2024 (and 82 for 2023).
Here's where it comes from and how CNN defines it. Seems really legit to me. Honestly it seems like a bit of an undercount because they wouldn't count the example of a person waving a gun or even pointing the gun at someone on school property but being shot by law enforcement before discharge.
Counts a lot of gang activity adjacent to school and after school hours as “school shootings”. Technically that is true, but that is also not what most people picture when they think of a school shooting. Kind of like when someone asks “is there a doctor in the house” and someone with a PhD in underwater mermaid linguistics chimes in.
We shouldn't, as a culture, be required to have an Eskimo's understanding of snow as it relates to gun violence. Like, it shouldn't be so ubiquitous that you feel the need to parse those hairs. That's the problem, not the counting.
I agree, but at the same time the intentional lack of context is misleading. If I say I experienced a fire in my house, you’d probably be sympathetic. If that fire in my house was nothing more than a candle that I lit and then blew out 10 minutes later, you’d probably laugh at me. But I know what reaction I can get by telling people that I was the victim of a fire. When people picture a school shooting, their mind goes to Parkland, Sandy Hook, Columbine. They don’t picture John and Mark meeting up in the parking lot at 3am in July and getting into a gun fight because they belong to rival gangs. Context is important.
Why should those be treated any differently? In both instances a student was killed by a gun on school grounds.
Most of them involve people who were shot (not killed) and were not students. But they should be treated differently because they are different phenomena with different root causes that require different actions to prevent. An active shooter hell bent on killing as many kids as possible is different from a drug dealer fighting with a rival in the parking lot outside of a basketball game. Gang violence is different than random rampages.
I somewhat see your point, but gang rivals fighting outside of a basketball game still puts a lot of innocent kids at risk. Maybe your example of school property at 3am would be different but as a parent or student, I'm going to feel less safe if they are blood stains in the school parking lot from last summer.
And yet the solutions proposed to solve the less frequent issue (mass shootings at schools) would do little to nothing to make kids safer from the other 98% of “school shootings”. That’s why context matters. If my kid goes to school and most of the other kids there are carrying Glock switches, banning assault rifles isn’t going to make my kid safer at all.
It meets the so-called 'lefty' narrative that a 15-year shouldn't have a loaded gun at school, or any other place, without adult supervision.
I have my doubts that its 98% of shootings while kids aren't present. But agreed that gang shootings might be a different solution than kids having a crappy time shootings. Unless the solution is to get rid of guns.
Bullets from a gun don't hurt only when fired from the barrel of a mass shooter. Students have to be afraid of the violence that you're describing, either as the intended victims or as potential bystanders.
Real solutions would address both.
I doubt any of those would have helped with this girl but would possibly make a dent in the gangland type shootings.
I’m fine with all of that but you know it is a non-starter for both conservatives and progressives. We’re paralyzed in this cycle for the foreseeable future.