[grandempire]

The only reason to "consider" it is because you want people to imagine a Columbine-like event.

[relaxing]

What’s the threshold for number of dead children to be considered a Columbine?

[grandempire]

In the case describing in this sub thread there are zero children involved.

Good idea. Let’s start by requiring at least one child to be shooting or shot at.

[relaxing]

What do you think it does to child, to know that there was violence at their school, but they lucked out by not being around when it happens?

Do you think that’s conducive to their education? To their mental well-being?

[grandempire]

Good idea. Incarcerate violent homeless fighting in the parking lot. We can’t have school around that.

Note that the presence of vagrants and other violent criminals is orthogonal to schools or children having access to firearms.

Any reasonable person will agree that violence on school property after school hours without student involvement is different than violence between students.

The only reason you want to say they are the same is you want to borrow that public sentiment against the horror of school shootings like Columbine.

You and I both know that if the public was explained the details of each event classified as a “school shooting” they would not have the same reaction.

[relaxing]

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or how many levels of irony you’re on here.

I don’t think you’re using “orthogonal” correctly. And the continual use of the ad populum fallacy doesn’t help your argument.

[Dylan16807]

It doesn't look sarcastic to me. They are arguing that two random people fighting in the parking lot should be arrested but not treated like a columbine. That makes a lot of sense to me. It doesn't make sense to you?

The phrasing only sounds weird because you were (baselessly) implying they didn't care about that violence, so they had to directly state that they care in a super obvious way.