A different take on the guns and schools debate

[Brian Stoffregen]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

Are you asking this because you know?  Or because you don't know?

Why do you think anyone here might know this?  Yet earlier you suggested because the numbers were so vast, securing such a border was impossible.  You comment as if you know the answer, that it isn't.  Which is why I'll ask again, what do you know that leads you to that conclusion?

This is a great country with almost limitless potential for innovation.  We built the first atomic bomb.  We put a man on the moon.  We developed a COVID vaccine in an incredibly short length of time.  Securing a 2,000 mile border through overlapping defenses doesn't seem beyond our capabilities.  We only lack the political will, for reasons I have already mentioned.  That's entirely my point:  we haven't seriously tried to date.  Because anyone who advocates for that is branded an uncaring racist.  Yet no one has the political integrity to repeal all such immigration restrictions.  Which makes me think some of those people understand what a disaster unrestricted immigration is.  By not attempting to repeal them, they get their desired outcome (the status quo) without any associated responsibility for those negatives.

Of course we could build a wall along the whole border. The issue isn't our ability, but cost versus benefit ratio. Are you willing to double your Federal Tax liability so that there is the money to build a wall all along the border - one that is less prone to being cut, scaled, or dug under than the ones that have been built?

[Charles Austin]

Different people use different sets of information, maybe different time periods . Maybe they use different definitions of the events they catalog. That accounts for the difference in numbers used in various places. It ain't rocket surgery to figure this out.

[Steven W Bohler]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

Are you asking this because you know?  Or because you don't know?

Why do you think anyone here might know this?  Yet earlier you suggested because the numbers were so vast, securing such a border was impossible.  You comment as if you know the answer, that it isn't.  Which is why I'll ask again, what do you know that leads you to that conclusion?

This is a great country with almost limitless potential for innovation.  We built the first atomic bomb.  We put a man on the moon.  We developed a COVID vaccine in an incredibly short length of time.  Securing a 2,000 mile border through overlapping defenses doesn't seem beyond our capabilities.  We only lack the political will, for reasons I have already mentioned.  That's entirely my point:  we haven't seriously tried to date.  Because anyone who advocates for that is branded an uncaring racist.  Yet no one has the political integrity to repeal all such immigration restrictions.  Which makes me think some of those people understand what a disaster unrestricted immigration is.  By not attempting to repeal them, they get their desired outcome (the status quo) without any associated responsibility for those negatives.

Of course we could build a wall along the whole border. The issue isn't our ability, but cost versus benefit ratio. Are you willing to double your Federal Tax liability so that there is the money to build a wall all along the border - one that is less prone to being cut, scaled, or dug under than the ones that have been built?

Double our federal tax bill?  You think building such a wall will cost the same as what the federal government spends on ALL things now?  Really?

[Charles Austin]

What is the issue here?
We don't have room for immigrants ? But we do.
We don't have jobs for immigrants? But we do.
We don't have structures to deal with immigrants? But we do.
Receiving large numbers of immigrants is a new challenge? No, it isn't.
What is the issue here?

[James S. Rustad]

By the way, has anybody actually looked at the site I mentioned at the beginning of this thread of discussion?

I have.  Interesting numbers.

Different people use different sets of information, maybe different time periods . Maybe they use different definitions of the events they catalog. That accounts for the difference in numbers used in various places. It ain't rocket surgery to figure this out.

Some sources, like the Gun Violence Archive (oft quoted by the media) use a lenient definition that includes shootings that most people would not consider a "mass shooting".  The GVA definition of a mass shooting is "an incident in which four or more people are injured or killed, other than the shooter."  Their figures include shootings that happen in homes.  So, when one family member shoots four family members, it is a mass shooting.

The criteria used by the Violence Project are the same as those used by the Congressional Research Service:
"a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms - not including the offender(s) - within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle)."

The key differences are:
- four or more injured or killed vs. four or more victims murdered with firearms
- inclusion of private shootings vs exclusion of private shootings
- inclusion of shootings attributable to underlying crimes vs exclusion of shootings attributable to underlying crimes

All of these differences make GVA's numbers much higher than VP's.  Most other sources seem to use criteria similar to VP's, given that their numbers are much closer to VP's.  GVP's numbers are outliers, which makes me question why the media nearly always uses GVP's numbers.

[James S. Rustad]

OK, here's another idea. Let's take everybody's big military style guns away. If the killings and the mass shootings don't go down, then we'll give everybody their guns back.

Hmmm...  You chose the source for shooting data.  It's interesting that they disagree with you on the importance of banning "big military style guns".

The most common weapon used to commit mass shootings is a handgun. Eighty percent of all mass shooters used at least one handgun during their crime. A semiautomatic assault weapon is the next most used weapon with 28% of shooters using them. Seventy-three percent of shooters who used a semiautomatic assault weapon also used a handgun at the scene.

[RDPreus]

Different people use different sets of information, maybe different time periods . Maybe they use different definitions of the events they catalog. That accounts for the difference in numbers used in various places. It ain't rocket surgery to figure this out.

Rocket surgery? 

[Charles Austin]

Rocket surgery: A tough row to hoe, like brain science.
Sheesh.

[DCharlton]

What is the issue here?
We don't have room for immigrants ? But we do.
We don't have jobs for immigrants? But we do.
We don't have structures to deal with immigrants? But we do.
Receiving large numbers of immigrants is a new challenge? No, it isn't.
What is the issue here?

It's inhumane to encourage people to enter the US illegally.  This subjects people to dangers and exploitation that are unnecessary.  Increasing legal immigration while simultaneously increasing funding for law enforcement on the border  is the reasonable thing to do. 

[Charles Austin]

Dangers? Like death from gang violence or civil unrest or starvation in your homeland?

[Robert Johnson]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

Are you asking this because you know?  Or because you don't know?

Why do you think anyone here might know this?  Yet earlier you suggested because the numbers were so vast, securing such a border was impossible.  You comment as if you know the answer, that it isn't.  Which is why I'll ask again, what do you know that leads you to that conclusion?

I live in Texas. The Trump wall, had it been completed, would have made a huge difference in the experience we have lived in the past two years. Would it be totally impenetrable? Of course not. But it would have been a major deterrent to the kind of mass invasion we have endured since "Biden" (actually, his puppeteers) took office.

[peter_speckhard]

Dangers? Like death from gang violence or civil unrest or starvation in your homeland?

It is mostly peaceful gang activity and civil unrest.

[Brian Stoffregen]

What is the issue here?
We don't have room for immigrants ? But we do.
We don't have jobs for immigrants? But we do.
We don't have structures to deal with immigrants? But we do.
Receiving large numbers of immigrants is a new challenge? No, it isn't.
What is the issue here?

It's inhumane to encourage people to enter the US illegally.  This subjects people to dangers and exploitation that are unnecessary.  Increasing legal immigration while simultaneously increasing funding for law enforcement on the border  is the reasonable thing to do.

Most of the thousands stalled at the border because of  are waiting to turn themselves in to the authorities so that the asylum process can begin. They are then here legally. The ending of Title 42 which prevented them from entering to help prevent the spread of COVID is ending.

[Brian Stoffregen]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

Are you asking this because you know?  Or because you don't know?

Why do you think anyone here might know this?  Yet earlier you suggested because the numbers were so vast, securing such a border was impossible.  You comment as if you know the answer, that it isn't.  Which is why I'll ask again, what do you know that leads you to that conclusion?

I live in Texas. The Trump wall, had it been completed, would have made a huge difference in the experience we have lived in the past two years. Would it be totally impenetrable? Of course not. But it would have been a major deterrent to the kind of mass invasion we have endured since "Biden" (actually, his puppeteers) took office.

The "mass invasion" are nearly all people seeking asylum. They seek out the border patrol to turn themselves in. The problem isn't the influx of illegals, but of the thousands here legally because they are seeking asylum. We haven't the process to effectively deal with them. Perhaps 10 years ago, the Border Patrol would just drop asylum-seeking families off at a Walmart parking lot, because they didn't have the facilities to house them. Some churches offered housing, showers, food, and help getting to relatives. Some housing facilities have since been built.

[Charles Austin]

We as a nation have the capacity to deal with those seeking asylum here. We just don't have the compassion to do so.
So we perk up our ears when someone alleges "guns" or "drugs" or "criminals" as take that an excuse for not planning to care for those needing our help or we denigrate those in need as dangerous or phonies.
We have room in our country for immigrants.
We have jobs for immigrants.
We can build better structures to deal with immigrants.
We took in those fleeing Europe in wartime.
We took in those fleeing Communism.
We took in Ugandans of Asian descent when Idi Amin confiscated their property and drove them out.
We took in Vietnamese and Hmong after Saigon fell.
Receiving large numbers of immigrants is a not new challenge for us.
Developing active compassion for neighbors from the south seeking refuge apparently is.