You say school shooting deaths are not increasing. 40 in the first half of 2018 is more than 6 in 2000, 5 in 2001, 7 in 2002, and so on.
This is data manipulation. Check the prior linked (real talk) article, and refer to the Northeastern study it references.
“You can’t effectively ban enough weapons to make a difference unless you trash the 2nd amendment.” Very rough paraphrase, but I’d swear I ran across that in one of your articles. Sadly, I can’t easily find it again… If you say I’m wrong on that, so be it.
That may have cropped up in a comment somewhere. I haven’t memorized all those, because I try to reply to every comment as a courtesy, and god knows there’ve been a few. But that doesn’t sound like something I’d say, because the truth is, even if you did repeal the 2nd Amendment, the government couldn’t collect enough guns to matter anyway. Check the math in the ‘evap fairy’ article linked earlier, it’s staggering. We are not only gun saturated, we are so oversaturated that we’d have to collect 98% of the guns to get down to guns/cap levels seen in England. That’s simply not possible in any reasonable way.
So the saturation thing is interesting. Pretending we wanted to manage gun crime by reducing guns, we’d have to eliminate enough guns to make them scarce for criminals. If we were to magically evaporate half the guns in the country, we’d still have far too many guns for it to matter in terms of criminal availability. But on the flip side, if we doubled the number of guns, it still wouldn’t matter. It’s like stoichiometry in chemistry. Once you add enough of one reactant, you don’t get more reaction by adding the same reactant. So what we need to do instead is reduce the other reactant, which is the motivation for crime, or more importantly the motivation for suicide.
If you wanted to continue the dialog, which I’m totally happy to do, go check (epidemic isn’t) and (evap fairy) related to overall policy, and (real talk) to put the school shooting numbers in a realistic frame. And then perhaps jump to (solution), because I don’t want to represent myself as someone who is simply stonewalling “no.” There are definitely things we can do.