It Has Happened Again...

[CFLarsen]

When was the worst school massacre in the history of the US?
No, no. It wasn't Columbine.
It was earlier than that.

Anyone? Bueller?

1929.

It isn't the guns, nor the availability of the guns, nor the number of guns.


Slingblade is correct. It is a bad craftsman that blames his tools. The problem isn't with the tools, it is with the person using them. However, this is hard to fix. Easier to make legislation that looks good in the short term so you can be re-elected.

Our gun laws are now stricter than they were in 1929. School shooting still occur. Perhaps gun control laws aren't the answer. They haven't worked so far.

I assume you are talking about the Bath School disaster, which was in 1927.

A one-off. Always possible to find.

 

[Katana]

It's the other way around: With guns, they have an easy way to kill others. Many others.

Actually, a bomb would be a very effective, possibly more effective way to kill many others.

The data is already there: We simply don't see these types of school killings - regardless of weapon - in comparable countries. But where do we hear about school shootings? The US.

It seems like you're talking now about something else. "Comparable countries" in what way? Maybe if you supplied some of this data, I would understand what you're saying.

I was responding to your question about why we haven't seen an increase in the number of school attacks using bombs in countries with fewer guns.

Remember this?

Right. Because guns are more readily available. Take them away without addressing anything else behind these shootings, and you'll see a rise in the use of bombs.

Why?

We don't see that in other countries with less guns.

If you want to argue that they would have killed anyway, in the same numbers, you have to explain why this doesn't happen elsewhere. Otherwise, you have nothing but baseless speculation.

If countries with the same or higher number of guns per capita as the U.S. have fewer school shootings, then that suggests that it is not the guns that are the problem.

As to why more school shootings would occur in the U.S. compared to countries where teenagers have the same access to guns, if that is indeed the case, I'm afraid that I cannot offer an explanation. I think that a great many parents, psychologists, educators, and law-enforcement personnel would like to know the answer, too.

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually, a bomb would be a very effective, possibly more effective way to kill many others.

It is relatively easy to make a bomb. The Internet is full of recipes. Why don't we see more bombings?

It seems like you're talking now about something else. "Comparable countries" in what way? Maybe if you supplied some of this data, I would understand what you're saying.

Why don't you start with the study I gave?

If countries with the same or higher number of guns per capita as the U.S. have fewer school shootings, then that suggests that it is not the guns that are the problem.

As to why more school shootings would occur in the U.S. compared to countries where teenagers have the same access to guns, if that is indeed the case, I'm afraid that I cannot offer an explanation. I think that a great many parents, psychologists, educators, and law-enforcement personnel would like to know the answer, too.

In which countries have teens the same access to guns as in the US?

 

[Darth Rotor]

It is relatively easy to make a bomb. The Internet is full of recipes. Why don't we see more bombings?



Why don't you start with the study I gave?



In which countries have teens the same access to guns as in the US?

Claus, that is a very good question. I suggest that one reason is the single added degree of difficulty. The other is that few teenagers want to sacrifice their car (that daddy perhaps bought for them) as part of their selfimmolation.

Another factor would perhaps be that since Oklahoma City, you have to have a license to buy manure/fertilizer in significant quantities.

The last? Kids don't have the patience to practice with wrist rockets and large ball bearings.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, that is a very good question. I suggest that one reason is the single added degree of difficulty.

It's not hard to make a bomb.

The other is that few teenagers want to sacrifice their car (that daddy perhaps bought for them) as part of their selfimmolation.

I trust you are joking.

Another factor would perhaps be that since Oklahoma City, you have to have a license to buy manure/fertilizer in significant quantities.

We are not talking about an Oklahoma City sized bomb.

The last? Kids don't have the patience to practice with wrist rockets and large ball bearings.

Joking, again.

 

[Katana]

Actually, a bomb would be a very effective, possibly more effective way to kill many others.

It is relatively easy to make a bomb. The Internet is full of recipes. Why don't we see more bombings?

As I said before, it is probably because guns may still be more accessible. Having said that, given the relative ease of making a bomb and the readily-accessible recipes, taking away guns would not necessarily disuade a student who wishes to kill other students in his school. Why is that a difficult notion for you to entertain?

It seems like you're talking now about something else. "Comparable countries" in what way? Maybe if you supplied some of this data, I would understand what you're saying.

Why don't you start with the study I gave?

Brief recap:

I suggested that removing guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school murders.

You asked why haven't we seen that in countries with fewer guns.

I said that I had tried to find statistics on the numbers of murders by students in schools relative to guns per capita but couldn't.

You said that the data was there and that, "We simply don't see these types of school killings - regardless of weapon - in comparable countries. But where do we hear about school shootings? The US."

When I asked for that data, you directed me to a study that you provided that looked at deaths from firearms in any setting as a function of gun ownership.

These results are also consistent with international comparisons. The U.S. level of private firearm ownership is much higher than in other developed nations and U.S. children aged 5 to14 are far more likely to be murdered, commit suicide, and die from gun accidents than children in other developed countries. Indeed, for children aged 5 to 14 in the United States, death from firearms is the third leading cause of mortality, following only motor vehicle crashes and cancer.

Again, not surprising that where there are more guns, there are more gun-related deaths. The study that you provided offers nothing about comparing school shootings among us countries as a function of per capita gun ownership or murders in the school setting by other weapons as a function of gun ownership per capita. Frankly, there was nothing about school shootings at all in the article. This information would be more germane to our discussion and the very information that I said earlier that I was unable to find. Do you have this data?

If countries with the same or higher number of guns per capita as the U.S. have fewer school shootings, then that suggests that it is not the guns that are the problem.

As to why more school shootings would occur in the U.S. compared to countries where teenagers have the same access to guns, if that is indeed the case, I'm afraid that I cannot offer an explanation. I think that a great many parents, psychologists, educators, and law-enforcement personnel would like to know the answer, too.

In which countries have teens the same access to guns as in the US?

I don't know. Do you?

Earlier you said:

The data is already there: We simply don't see these types of school killings - regardless of weapon - in comparable countries. But where do we hear about school shootings? The US.

If you want to argue that they would have killed anyway, in the same numbers, you have to explain why this doesn't happen elsewhere. Otherwise, you have nothing but baseless speculation.

You haven't provided evidence that removing guns will reduce school shootings. You have only provided evidence that the U.S. has the largest number of firearms among developed nations as well as the highest number of gun-related fatalities among children. This is neither new information nor is it surprising.

 

[Orangutan]

Where the $%^& does a 13-year-old get an AK-47??!?!?!?!

Gee I duno, I supose I'd have to read the article to find out something like that!

The boy's Mac-90 rifle, a replica of an AK-47 assault rifle, jammed after the first shot, police said. The rifle belonged to his parents, who told police they kept it in a gun safe.

What is this, Slashdot?

 

[Katana]

We are not talking about an Oklahoma City sized bomb.

In reference to Columbine:

Had both bombs not failed, explosives experts concluded, the 660 kids in the cafeteria at 11:20 a.m. April 20 likely would have died -- nearly four times the number killed in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Quote From Previous Post

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's not hard to make a bomb.



I trust you are joking.



We are not talking about an Oklahoma City sized bomb.


Joking, again.

1. I am not joking about the car, nor the wrist rockets. They are good for hunting varmints. A wrist rocket is a rather powerful form of sling shot that I have hunted varmints with. (Squirrels, rabbits, etc. ) It takes some practice to hit what you aim at.

2. I wasn't talking about an OKC sized bomb either. The rules on fertilizer purchase changed within a year of OKC. The papers were littered with articles on the topic.

According to my combat engineer friends, who use fertilizer and diesel to crater roads, it only takes about 50 lbs to make a nice sized boom, when mixed with diesel and detonated. (Blasting aps can be tricky to get ahold of)

DR

 

[The Painter]

It looks like guns are number 9 on the list;

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm



Annual Causes of Death in the United States


Tobacco
435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
365,000
Alcohol
85,000
Microbial Agents
75,000
Toxic Agents
55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes
26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs
32,000
Suicide
30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms
29,000
Homicide
20,308
Sexual Behaviors
20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect
17,000

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin
7,600
Marijuana
0


It seems the only safe thing to do is smoke pot!!!

 

[qayak]

I suggested that removing guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school murders.

Don't make guns inaccessable to children because might use bombs instead? What kind of logic is that?

You don't think that making guns inaccessable to the people who mostly do the shooting would prevent some of the shootings but will instead make them turn to bombs? That is an interesting conclusion, what evidence do you have to show that this would happen?

 

[qayak]

It looks like guns are number 9 on the list;

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm



Annual Causes of Death in the United States


Tobacco
435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
365,000
Alcohol
85,000
Microbial Agents
75,000
Toxic Agents
55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes
26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs
32,000
Suicide
30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms
29,000
Homicide
20,308
Sexual Behaviors
20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect
17,000

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin
7,600
Marijuana
0


It seems the only safe thing to do is smoke pot!!!

Did you make an error with motor vehicle crashes? Should it be 46,347 instead of 26,347? If not, firearm deaths are 8th.

Another thing is that you have to add in the suicides committed with firearms. That is a direct result of having guns readily available.

 

[qayak]

As difficult as it would be to gather up all the guns and destroy them, it would still be easier than it would be to correct whatever it is that contributes to kids choosing to kill in this manner.

The fact is, boys go through violent stages as they develop, some to greater degrees than others. You can have a violent boy around without him being a real danger to anyone. You cannot have a violent boy with a gun around because he is a danger to everyone.

Unfortunately, this violent phase doesn't end when boys reach adult hood, it takes a few more years. For some, it never ends.

 

[The Painter]

motor vehicle crashes (43,000)

They did make a mistake, but they put it in the right place on the list.

 

[qayak]

Do you think that a teenager who is pissed off and/or ill enough to go to school to kill people will be disuaded just because he can't find a gun? They're not going to school to shoot people. They're going to school to kill people. Removing access to guns removes access to a set of tools, but there are others available if they're determined enough.

This is completely unsubstantiated by any evidence, it is just your opinion. The evidence shows that when guns are not readily available, the homicide rate and suicide rate drop. Women are twice as likely to die when there is a gun in the home than when there is not.

Guns facsinate boys for the same reason sports do. Boys like things that move quickly through three dimensional space. they gravitate towards activities like this. IN OUR WORLD, NOTHING MOVES THROUGH THREE DIMENSIONAL SPACE FASTER OR MORE DRAMATICALLY, THAN A BULLET SHOT FROM A GUN. I can guarantee you that most boys who shoot a slingshot are pretending it is a gun and as soon as they can get a gun, they will put the slingshot away.

As for other countries, I cannot comment. I don't know if anyone has tallied up the number of murders in schools by students relative to guns per capita per country. I actually tried to find information about it and was unable. If you find anything, I would be curious.

It's not just schools shootings. This discussion has centered on that issue but there are a lot of other deaths that will be reduced significantly if guns are made inaccessible to children.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Yes there are safe ways to use a gun but there are also many dangerous things done with guns. One of them is leaving them laying around, usually loaded where kids, mostly boys, have unrestricted and unsupervised access to them.

If you leave your car running, with the keys in it, your insurance company will not pay. In my area, if that car was stolen and someone killed or property damaged, the public insurance company would pay but you would be billed.

The reason for this is that you were negligent. Why not with a gun? The fact is, any owner who does not properly secure their gun, at all times, is a negligent gun owner and should be held responsible for all injuries and damage attributed to that gun.

Yes, guns can be perfectly safe, unfortunately far too many are not and need to be controlled. But don't worry, seatbelt laws didn't stop anyone from enjoying a Sunday drive with the family I doubt safe storing laws will stop you from enjoying your gun at the range or in the field.

Hey look, I agree. People who leave guns lying around, or who purchase guns and don't bother to figure out how to use them safely and store them safely, or who allow their children access to the guns without supervision -- those people are irresponsible. There are, unfortunately, a lot of them. CFLarsen, however, was trying to argue that guns can never be safe, and that there is no safe way to use a gun. That, of course, is complete crap.

I have no problem with discussions about gun laws, whether or not we should have mandatory safety classes, storage laws, etc. I took issue with the idea that we should completely ban guns based on the idea that there is no such thing as using a gun safely (well that and that CFLarsen then used a bait-and-switch tactic to try and change his argument). I don't think anyone here is going to argue that a gun isn't dangerous when used carelessly. But the original assertion I was arguing against was that no gun can be used safely -- which is flat-out rediculous.

 

[Katana]

Don't make guns inaccessable to children because might use bombs instead? What kind of logic is that?

That wasn't my argument. You would know that if you had read beyond that post.

You don't think that making guns inaccessable to the people who mostly do the shooting would prevent some of the shootings but will instead make them turn to bombs? That is an interesting conclusion, what evidence do you have to show that this would happen?

This is completely unsubstantiated by any evidence, it is just your opinion. The evidence shows that when guns are not readily available, the homicide rate and suicide rate drop. Women are twice as likely to die when there is a gun in the home than when there is not.

I never suggested that it was anything but opinion, and I am not the only one to offer only that. Again, if you had followed along, you would have noticed that.

What I was saying is that I don't believe that removing guns is the solution to stopping deaths from students trying to kill each other. It may stop school shootings, but there are other means available to a teenager determined to kill other students. The problem lies in what is behind the killings and not the tools used to accomplish them.

Guns facsinate boys for the same reason sports do. Boys like things that move quickly through three dimensional space. they gravitate towards activities like this. IN OUR WORLD, NOTHING MOVES THROUGH THREE DIMENSIONAL SPACE FASTER OR MORE DRAMATICALLY, THAN A BULLET SHOT FROM A GUN. I can guarantee you that most boys who shoot a slingshot are pretending it is a gun and as soon as they can get a gun, they will put the slingshot away.

Wow. Equating school shooters with boys playing cowboys. That's interesting opinion and one that I do not share.

It's not just schools shootings. This discussion has centered on that issue but there are a lot of other deaths that will be reduced significantly if guns are made inaccessible to children.

My discussion has focused on school shootings. You can discuss whatever you like, but I would appreciate it if you did not take my comments out of context again and attack supposed "logic" that I did not offer up.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It seems obvious to me that Claus does not care if people die, he only cares that they die from something other than a gunshot wound.

 

[Polaris]

Anything can happen. But kids bringing bombs to school doesn't happen nowhere as often as kids bringing guns to school.



Wrong. We have seen that there is a clear link between a large number of guns in society and a large number of gun deaths.

That is a fact.

Kids don't even bring guns to school that often. How many school shootings have there been since 1996? Twenty, if that? (I'm probably highballing that number, I really don't know).

These shootings, when they happen (and of the three recent US school shootings, only one involved a student with a gun and nobody was even shot) they make international news for days. This tells me they aren't everyday occurances, but freak events.

 

[qayak]

. . . I would appreciate it if you did not take my comments out of context again and attack supposed "logic" that I did not offer up.

You wrote: I suggested that removing guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school murders.

You did write it and it was in context. If you wish to modify the statement or clarify it, please do.