4 ms·
> No they're not. Yes, they are. But rather than merely gainsay, I'll support that by observing: a) here in Australia we regularly, consistently, have zero
by Jedd 3y ago
> No they're not.
Yes, they are.
But rather than merely gainsay, I'll support that by observing:
a) here in Australia we regularly, consistently, have zero school shootings each year. Can recommend.
b) you are probably misunderstanding the meaning of regular, and conflating it with frequent.
Halley's Comet is regular - at once every ~76 years. But obviously not frequent.
(I'd argue, as per (a), that the USA has too high a frequency of school shootings as well. If your tolerance for slaughtered children is higher than mine you may disagree with that claim.)
- nostrebored 3y agoMaybe if you had the same attitude about bus fatalities this would be grounded in reality. If we relax the rules to school bus related fatalities there are almost an order of magnitude more.
- JoeyJoJoJr 3y agoAnd many more people die of heart disease than school bus fatalities, which is arguably more preventable. The point is that a school shooting represents an event that is so extreme, and so completely antithetical to society, that the members of any well-functioning society should have enough shared values to give such an event the level of importance it deserves.
- escapedmoose 3y agoI would think if the US had routine bus fatality counts an order of magnitude larger than other countries, then yes, that would be cause to be alarmed about student bus fatalities in the US as well.
- Jedd 3y agoHow are bus fatalities related to a misunderstanding about what 'regular' means? (And/or how regular is not a synonym of frequent.)
- tantalor 3y agoWhat I mean by "regular" is you can go to any school or place and find it happening. Bullying is regular in America. It happens in every school. Police brutality/abuse is regular in America. It happens in every city with a large enough police force. Pharmaceutical addiction is regular in America. It happens in every town.
- Jedd 3y agoOkay, so you've redefined regular, and are now surprised the person you're responding to doesn't share your unique definition. It sounds like instead of just mistakenly using it as a synonym for frequent, you're mistakenly using it to mean something like prevalent or widespread or pervasive. Either way you're responding to a perfectly valid claim by re-purposing the words used by the parent post and then arguing against that.