Active shooters who target schools tend not to be inner city kids too. This me parallel the fact that wealthy people are more likely to commit suicide than poor people. These types of active shooters tend to be white males as well. There are definitely some other social factors at work here.

Of course I care about the kids. That's the same type of question people on the left are saying, accusing of caring about guns more than children. But what I'm doing is trying to balance everything to solve the problem at hand

Let's say that by some ingenious and accurate scientific method, you're able to pinpoint the exact income amount, family make-up, racial ethnicity, geographic location, age, gender, grade point average, hair and eye color, number of hours spent playing violent video games, books read, YouTube videos watched, movies streamed, medications being taken and number of pets in the home.

With all that specific and correlated data at your disposal, what would that do for you?  Are you then going to be able to identify the reasons mass shooters become mass shooters?  Would you them be able to change the suspected critical variables to prevent it from ever happening?  How would you go about using that data to prevent shootings?  Would you EXPEL all students who meet some arbitrary threshold of those factors so they never get a chance to attend school?  Would that stop someone from going to a school they don't attend (Sandy Hook, Uvalde, etc. seems to prove otherwise)?

Would you force anyone in that group to undergo psychiatric therapy to see if they are prone to violence?  Would you place their entire household on a "No Firearms" watchlist so there are no firearms within easy reach?

Trying to classify mass shooters by this or that factor may be interesting or even instructive, but you still can't use those profiles to take action.  All you can do is take each individual as they present evidence they are actually a threat.  Where they land on the EEF scale of coincidental demographics has no bearing on what you can do legally.  How are you even going to gather that information on every single person in order to create the group of probable threats?

Let's say that by some ingenious and accurate scientific method, you're able to pinpoint the exact income amount, family make-up, racial ethnicity, geographic location, age, gender, grade point average, hair and eye color, number of hours spent playing violent video games, books read, YouTube videos watched, movies streamed, medications being taken and number of pets in the home.

With all that specific and correlated data at your disposal, what would that do for you?  Are you then going to be able to identify the reasons mass shooters become mass shooters?  Would you them be able to change the suspected critical variables to prevent it from ever happening?  How would you go about using that data to prevent shootings?  Would you EXPEL all students who meet some arbitrary threshold of those factors so they never get a chance to attend school?  Would that stop someone from going to a school they don't attend (Sandy Hook, Uvalde, etc. seems to prove otherwise)?

Would you force anyone in that group to undergo psychiatric therapy to see if they are prone to violence?  Would you place their entire household on a "No Firearms" watchlist so there are no firearms within easy reach?

Trying to classify mass shooters by this or that factor may be interesting or even instructive, but you still can't use those profiles to take action.  All you can do is take each individual as they present evidence they are actually a threat.  Where they land on the EEF scale of coincidental demographics has no bearing on what you can do legally.  How are you even going to gather that information on every single person in order to create the group of probable threats?

They tend not to? Or people intent on murder tend to go places with easier pickings?

The left likes to completely ignore gang violence where the vast majority of homicides take place because it doesn't fit their gun control agenda.

That's kinda racist.

Those really are two separate issues though.

I would say your claim that they ignore gang violence is wrong. The left  wants to solve gang violence too.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Those really are two separate issues though.

Those really are two separate issues though.

I would say your claim that they ignore gang violence is wrong. The left  wants to solve gang violence too.

So "gun violence" doesn't matter if it's poor people doing the vast majority of the dying?

okay dude

"The left  wants to solve gang violence too."
Bullschiff!
The "left" who are generally the more well off people in our society,
think they are immune to gang violence and it serves their interests.
"Laws for thee but not for me".
 

Even though active shootings at schools dont happen often, it's odd how none happened in the hood.  It's like the gunmen knew to stay away. 

Proof that ccw prevents gun violence and mass shootings !

People dying from opioid abuse and people dying from obesity are two separate issues. Just because you talk about one doesn't mean you don't care about the other.

I was thinking,  what's the difference between someone outside the school with a firearm & someone inside the school with a firearm. 

I mean they were willing to rush the gun men inside but begged the gun men outside.

One was directly killing the kids while the other was (in) directly getting the kids killed.

Not sure if there were more parents then LEO there
Not sure who/if there were civilian firearms on scene in person or in vehicles.

I was thinking,  what's the difference between someone outside the school with a firearm & someone inside the school with a firearm. 

I mean they were willing to rush the gun men inside but begged the gun men outside.

One was directly killing the kids while the other was (in) directly getting the kids killed.

Not sure if there were more parents then LEO there
Not sure who/if there were civilian firearms on scene in person or in vehicles.

The only difference is that one type of gun violence is useful to your gun grabber agenda while the other is useful for getting rid of the rest of the constitution with a militarized police force and all-powerful “intelligence” agencies.

The reason why you don’t want to talk about both at the same time is that both your arguments undermine each other.