4 ms·

> This definition is broad enough to encompass (...) And that's perfectly fine. This criteria covers all conceivable scenarios where a kid going to school can

> This definition is broad enough to encompass (...) And that's perfectly fine. This criteria covers all conceivable scenarios where a kid going to school can be shot. Isn't that the whole point?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aidenn0 2y ago
When people talk about "stopping school shootings" they don't tend to want to substitute a student with a knife getting arrested at gunpoint with that student stabbing another student.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  this may be a bit unfair. stopping school shootings by any sane argument is ALWAYS about gun control. as an exercise - take any definition of a school shooting you desire. then compare USA with any country on the planet of your choosing (you can even pick random geographical area spanning random number of countries) and see whether the childhood our children are subjected to are comparable. we have failed and are continuing to fail our children, regardless of how you choose to define what school shooting
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    Even conceding that point, if I were to say something absurd like "There were sixteen-quadrillion school shootings in the US last year" and someone pushes back on that, I can't just fall back on "well there were a lot" and absolve myself of rhetorical malpractice.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      our public discourse currently is a lot of what we are talking about here - let's try to "define" what school shooting is. to me, as far as that goes (as I mentioned, regardless of the definition of it) we are not 3rd but 4th World Country
mrdilkington 2y ago
The whole point seems to be to cast as wide a net as possible for the definition as so to claim a higher number of "school shootings" than the majority agreed definition suggests. Makes me wonder what motive people could have to do this.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  I wonder if your wondering is rhetorical? There is a pretty obvious candidate.
  - mrdilkington 2y ago
    It was.

> This definition is broad enough to encompass (...) And that's perfectly fine. This criteria covers all conceivable scenarios where a kid going to school can be shot. Isn't that the whole point?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

aidenn0 2y ago

When people talk about "stopping school shootings" they don't tend to want to substitute a student with a knife getting arrested at gunpoint with that student stabbing another student.

bdangubic 2y ago
this may be a bit unfair. stopping school shootings by any sane argument is ALWAYS about gun control. as an exercise - take any definition of a school shooting you desire. then compare USA with any country on the planet of your choosing (you can even pick random geographical area spanning random number of countries) and see whether the childhood our children are subjected to are comparable. we have failed and are continuing to fail our children, regardless of how you choose to define what school shooting
- aidenn0 2y ago
  Even conceding that point, if I were to say something absurd like "There were sixteen-quadrillion school shootings in the US last year" and someone pushes back on that, I can't just fall back on "well there were a lot" and absolve myself of rhetorical malpractice.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    our public discourse currently is a lot of what we are talking about here - let's try to "define" what school shooting is. to me, as far as that goes (as I mentioned, regardless of the definition of it) we are not 3rd but 4th World Country

mrdilkington 2y ago

The whole point seems to be to cast as wide a net as possible for the definition as so to claim a higher number of "school shootings" than the majority agreed definition suggests. Makes me wonder what motive people could have to do this.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
I wonder if your wondering is rhetorical? There is a pretty obvious candidate.
- mrdilkington 2y ago
  It was.