Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Cascarino's Pizzeria, Apr 4, 2009.
Yes, especially in the civil war.
That's why you should not sell anything from where you live.
Pretty soon people are going to stop selling guns, and start high jacking cigarette trucks and sell cigarettes. I can not even imagine cigaretts now going for 10 dollars a pack.
Wasn't there a song and video made by a group the lead singer was weird looking himself and had a raspy type voice. That showed a wierd looking young kid go into a class room, and blow away all his fellow students.
In an earlier thread, I posted some stuff about school shootings just to take one segment of this issue.
From 1966 to 1990 there were 9 school shootings in America. Three of them involved cops shooting protesters, so those are a bit different. In 2008, there were 8 school shootings.
Of course, this doesn't take into account work place shootings, church shootings or guys wiping out their families as a part of a murder suicide.
I too would be wary of media hysteria. Our media suck. They will pick up on it as a massive problem if it sells ad space.
The bottom line, however, is that these type of mass shootings do seem to be significantly on the rise. Back in the day, I rarely remember anything like this. When it did happen, it was an open wound that lasted generations and was memorialized by movies (Terror in the Tower -- re: UT shootings in 1966) and song (I don't like Mondays).
Now, we forget them quickly because they happen so much more frequently. I find it interesting that the topic immediately devolves into a conversation about gun control. Hell, in this thread, some one simply posted the topic and before anyone said anything about gun laws, the first posts were things like "It's the guns fault" by people who are presumably being sarcastic.
I'm not an advocate of outlawing guns, but clearly this is a problem. I have been an advocate of really ramping up criminal liability for the purchaser of guns used in crimes but beyond that I don't have any answers.
It's obvious that guns are the problem. Take the same population and culture we have now, and instead of handguns sell AK-47s at Walmart. Bam, problem multiplied.
Iran's slogan: Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.
Our problem is gun proliferation.
No, in the video, Jeremy kills himself in front of all his fellow students.
Most of these situations seem to boil down to someone being made fun of or harassed in some way and snapping .... or parents feeling they are saving their kids from evil of some kind.
PS, ITN, I went to school in SC, we had to take a Hunter Safety course to get into high school. I do think gun safety classes of some kind should be mandatory in public schools, especially in urban areas. First, it teaches respect (and a bit of fear maybe) of the gun and what it can do if not used properly, and Second, they could kill who they intended to kill better and not cause so many unintended innocent victims (meant at least half tongue-in-cheek).
A professor who wrote a book about gun control concluded that since there are probably hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in the US (yes that's a fcking ridiculous number considering many millions don't even own 1 gun) banning gun sales or limiting them to law enforcement and/or a select group of ppl would have no effect. So in essence his analogy was "40,000 Americans die every year in car accidents but we don't ban cars" So these senseless tragedies are going to happen and it's just the price we all pay for the lax gun laws we've decided to live with.
I concur; the aspect of gun safety in secondary schools should be surfaced as a legitimate lesson for all students. It is a tremendous shame that a relative few firearm abuses, in proportion to the total number of firearms owned in the United States, make firearms a target for banning discussions when indeed, in relation to vehicles, these self-same abuses are dealt with in terms of further instruction for users. Further, while most schools are quite receptive to lessons about biological and vehicular safety, many are generally closed to lessons concerning firearms safety. The NRA's Eagle Education series on firearms handling is a worthwhile model for schools nationwide.
Maybe Dick Cheney could stop in now that he has free time.
I read a great article about this the other day but i can't find the link.
But it was along the lines that millions are bullied, play violent video games, own guns etc - without ever killing anyone.
OTOH, study of the perps in multiple mass shootings revealed either psychopathic behaviour, or clinical illness.
Yet this receives little focus in favour of simplistic explanations the public/media can get into.
This is your argument? That the likes of Columbine would have been prevented if someone had taught them gun safety?
Now remember kids... never point a loaded gun at anyone!
I don't really buy the idea that banning guns would have no effect. Certainly, criminal syndicates and habitual criminals like Lovelle Mixon would still get guns. Rightwing Nazi nutjobs like Poplawski would likely still get guns. But I do think that some of the shooters we see, depressed dads, mentally ill loners, spurned husbands, troubled kids, etc might have their sprees diverted with more difficult access to guns. A generally law-abiding character who suddenly feels desperate is not likely to know how to procure illegal goods. A crazed loner will have trouble engineering a black-market transaction.
It doesn't mean that the depressed dad won't just drown his kids in the tub, or the troubled loner attack someone with a hammer. Nor is this small amount of possibly preventable deaths necessarily much of a policy argument for firearm regulation. But I find the throw up the arms, shooters will always have guns argument to be just as simplistically knee-jerk as those who blame all guns every time there is a shooting.
The question is, what is the maximum weaponry in a society that the mentally ill or just enraged and murderous can get their hands on?
The options in various societies range from bare hand to kitchen knife to gun to assault rifle. You draw your line wherever you like. We've drawn it after guns, and we pay our consequences.
The mentally ill and angry will do as much damage as the weaponry available to them. If they sold nukes at Walmart we'd all be dead (nukes don't kill people either).
I understand where you are going with this - however the author argued that plenty of opportunity existed to head this stuff off at the pass.
Also - he raised the interesting point that the school shootings don't happen at the big urban schools? I haven't tried to confirm that?
One thing I've seen on tv is security and metal detectors at the doors of big urban schools, just to deal with gang violence.
We had shootings at both of the big urban schools (one in Phoenix and one in Los Angeles) I went to. My little brother was shot right after school one day leaving the same high school I had gone to previously. We did not have metal detectors at either school but we did have them for football games, basketball games, etc... We never had a 'mass' shooting at either school but we did have ongoing tit-for-tat shootings, of course, that added up to many dead.
I think the reason there may not be as many 'mass' shootings at the big urban schools is that none of us were ever under the illusion that other students were not armed (shootings, when they did occur, were drive-bys or yell 'jiggaboo' and let two fly and then run off sorts of things) and that security guard were armed.
I had read there were in fact zero mass shootings
Not completely no... obviously no! The sad lessons of Columbine in Littleton, CO; Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA; and most recently Albertville Technical in Winnenden, Germany, along with other school tragedies dealing with mass shootings, is that there are a small percentage of students with psychological problems that, regrettably, no amount of firearms training will address. What needs to occur in these instances is a greater percentage of armed citizens, with legal concealed weapon permits, to defend other students since in all of these instances school security was of no aide. It is only when a majority of citizens are armed that full security will be realized.
It is only when a majority of nations have nuclear weapons that full international security will be realized. Hmmmm....
The mistake you make in comparison is (1) assuming that firearms and nuclear weapons are the same and comparable, and (2) that we have random nuclear attacks. Neither are true. But you knew that....
I'm pro-gun and I thought the same thing. A strapped adolescent teen with raging hormones does little to make me think my brother would be safer at school. Armed guards however, are a different story.
On the flip side, more gun control is not the answer. Only those citizens that you don't have to worry about will "jump through hoops" to obtain the firearms that they desire, and you can bet if they are willing to do that, their intentions are to harm no one.
Nuclear (atomic) weapons have only been deployed twice. Each time there was only one country in the world with atomic weapons... Coincidence?
And why don't we have nuclear attacks? Because of deterrence, in part, which supports your give everybody a gun theory. But deterrence doesn't work too well in a Mexican standoff with multiple players. This is where nonproliferation comes in. Imagine every single country in the world with a nuclear weapon. We would have nuclear attacks. We would have "random" nonstate nuclear attacks.
"Random" mass murder is the price you pay for proliferation of weapons.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBIpfAl8cpI"]YouTube - CNN Rick Sanchez 'SLAMS' FOX News's Gun Fear Mongering[/ame]
Separate names with a comma.