Comments

5 responses to “Madison, Wisconsin”

1. 

   Independent Thinker

   2024-12-16

   The Gun Violence Archive includes the following in its definition of “school shootings” and “mass shootings”: after-hours altercations in school parking lots, accidental discharges, and other events unrelated to active shooter tragedies. Essentially, any time a firearm is discharged on (or, in some cases, near) school grounds, it is counted—regardless of the context or outcome.

   All gun-related incidents are serious, but framing them this broadly dilutes the gravity of truly devastating events like what happened in Madison. Using inflated numbers in this way risks distracting from the critical conversations needed to address these tragedies effectively.

   Conflating these categories is a common tactic among those advocating for stricter gun laws, often at the expense of law-abiding citizens’ Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. Groups like Giffords, for instance, frequently cite such alarmist statistics. In fact, the organization’s founder has suggested that civilians should not be allowed to own guns at all. This approach undermines trust in the data and alienates people who might otherwise engage in meaningful dialogue about reasonable measures to prevent gun violence.

   Moreover, framing the issue this way makes constructive conversations about solutions harder by polarizing the debate from the outset. If we want to reduce gun violence, especially in schools, we need to focus on the root causes of incidents like Madison—not lump them into a catch-all category that includes parking lot disputes and accidents. How can we have a productive discussion if we can’t even agree on what the problem actually is?

   Instead, let’s focus on clear definitions, reliable data, and practical solutions that address the specific patterns behind events like Madison while respecting constitutional rights. Only then can we have a real chance at preventing such tragedies.

   Reply
   1. 

      Anonymous Fox

      2024-12-16

      I mean, a surefire way to prevent gun violence *would* be to remove guns from the equation altogether. Not that Jeff even suggested the removal of guns to begin with. We can respect constitutional rights, sure, but sometimes it may be worth examining the staying power of things written centuries ago by people who couldn’t have considered how things are today.

      As a side note, maybe thinking independently doesn’t mean that you have to ignore expert opinions.

      Reply
   2. 

      Independent Thinker

      2024-12-16

      Fox,

      We, as a society, are free to amend the Constitution. If legal change is necessary and the Constitution stands in the way, then the proper course is to seek an amendment—not to pass laws that violate it.

      I also want to address your side note. I come here for civil discourse, and I don’t appreciate the backhanded comment about my username. If you believe I’ve ignored expert opinions, I’d appreciate it if you provided examples. Let’s engage in good faith and focus on the arguments without unnecessary digs.

      Thanks

      Reply
2. 

   Jeff

   2024-12-17

   Indy, I see you’re once again doing your best to tote the NRA’s water here to derail the conversation. The Gun Violence Archive’s numbers are unimpeachable, and attempting to discount their statistics as “distracting from the critical conversation” is actually what *you* are doing. We need to frame the statistics that broadly so that people realize that guns *are* the problem.

   Sure, the Constitution protects the right to “bear arms”, but when that comes into regular conflict with the Declaration’s “inalienable right” to “life”, something has to change. And so far, I’ve seen you offer no solutions, other than to maintain the party line of a corrupt, morally (and financially) bankrupt association — which has just led to more people dying.

   Reply
   1. 

      Independent Thinker

      2024-12-17

      Jeff, Let’s clear a few things up.

      1. I didn’t question the numbers; I questioned the framing:
      When we’re discussing a tragedy like Madison, lumping active shooter events together with parking lot altercations and accidents under the label “school shootings” misrepresents the scope of the problem. My point is that this kind of broad framing distracts from the specific patterns we need to address to prevent similar tragedies. You can’t solve a problem if you don’t accurately define it.

      2. The NRA has nothing to do with my argument:
      I don’t contribute to, follow, or represent the NRA, so trying to tie me to them is a lazy attempt to discredit what I’m actually saying. You and I can disagree without attributing my position to some boogeyman.

      3. The right to bear arms doesn’t conflict with anyone’s right to life:
      Guns don’t infringe on anyone’s rights—criminals do. Murder, assault, and violence are already illegal. Focusing on tools instead of the individuals committing these acts sidesteps the real issue: why people commit these crimes and how we can stop them.

      You say I’ve offered no solutions. I’d counter that effective solutions come from understanding why these events occur, not just inflating statistics to push a narrative. If you’re serious about solutions, let’s talk about root causes: mental health, law enforcement response, school security, or societal factors that drive people to violence. Those are conversations worth having.

      I’m here for honest debate, not strawman arguments. So if you want to keep this civil, I’m all ears.

      Reply