• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

anglolawyer said:
Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+.

A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts?
Click to expand...

Norway requires license. Breivik had all his weapons legal and licensed, and semi-auto only. You don't really need full auto for people who don't shoot back.
 
anglolawyer said:
Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+.

A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts?
Click to expand...

I think murder sprees have been around forever. There were certainly plenty of them prior to Columbine.
 
anyone who thinks outlawing guns would stop stuff like this is delusional and not very bright.

I want to kill people at school, I goto local "guy" and buy illegal gun and ammo. Problem solved....

why is it people don't get this?

Not to mention that the Mexican Cartels would be very happy to get rich shipping illegal guns into the country.


waits for the overly emotional whining by the turtle neck clad weenies
 
I don't think gun control is the issue here. There's some kind of sick trend with these mass shootings.

Forensic Psychiatrist Dr Park Dietz:

He takes an equally severe attitude to news shows. Twice, he appeared on CNN in the middle of a sensational murder case and warned the network that if it didn't tone down their coverage it would lead to further crimes. On another occasion, he told a production team from 20/20, a magazine show on ABC, that he would not participate in a programme reconstructing a workplace shooting because he feared their approach would encourage copycats. The programme went out on a Friday; by the following Tuesday there had been two fresh mass murders in other parts of the United States.

"Here's my hypothesis," he said. "Saturation-level news coverage of mass murder causes, on average, one more mass murder in the next two weeks." The reason, he says, has something to do with the USA's size. In a country so large the likelihood of one or two people snapping becomes quite high.
Click to expand...


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/dr-park-dietz-dangerous-minds-412116.html
 
Agatha said:
You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that.

A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries.

Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that.

Very informative. I'm sure that everyone here can both read it and understand it. They still won't give up their guns though, it's a shame.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I have to wonder why republicans want to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote.
Click to expand...

I think you have republicans on the brain. In WA State it is the Democrats that are leading the way in easing unnecessary gun restrictions.

thaiboxerken said:
background check is not required to buy a gun in the USA
Click to expand...

For the most interesting and least abused guns (imo) there are.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
scarlettinlondon said:
I can see that you don't LIKE it. I don't see why it's silly. You might not like the idea of giving up your rights. It can't really be silly to have a country where civilians don't carry\own guns. Boring perhaps. Safe and dull possibly. Not silly though.
Click to expand...

You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?
 
Agatha said:
You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that.

A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries.

Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths.
Click to expand...

Are suicides included in the US firearms deaths?
 
LTC8K6 said:
There are plenty of mass killers who didn't use guns, I think.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

I think serial killers are different, not better or worse, but different. Maybe they have an issue with prostitutes or bums or junkies, whatever. But these mostly young men who target schools and colleges in a single incident, often killing themselves, are saying something else. Don't ask me what.
 
StankApe said:
anyone who thinks outlawing guns would stop stuff like this is delusional and not very bright.

I want to kill people at school, I goto local "guy" and buy illegal gun and ammo. Problem solved....

why is it people don't get this?
Click to expand...

Because I disagree with you doesn't mean either of these things. I am certainly not delusional. Brightness appears to be in the eye of the beholder - I disagree with you, therefore I am not very bright. Ho hum.

I think a country is safer if civilians do not own guns. This appears to be backed up by gun related crime statistics from the UK.

my interpretation is as follows. You don't want to give up your guns not because you disagree with my position, but because it's your right to carry them and you don't wish that right to be restricted by law because you personally are a responsible gun owner.

I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights.
 
Chris L said:
You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?
Click to expand...

Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse.
 
Dr.Sid said:
It's a tragedy. I don't think any regulation can prevent this. But maybe it can make it harder .. less probable .. just a bit.
Armed teachers ? Not sure about that .. but metal detector and armed guard at the doors ? You bet ..
Click to expand...

The shooter was the son of one of the teachers. He was known at the school. He'd probably have gotten past any security measures you'd realistically put in place at a freaking elementary school.

This happened only about half an hour from me. Some of my co-workers have kids in that school.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I have as much to go on as the opposing argument. Also, difficulty of task discourages many that would do the task if it were easier.
Click to expand...

What is your opposing argument? One of these?

I have an easy time believing this guy would've killed people if he didn't have access to guns.
or
I have a hard time believing this guy would've killed people if he did have access to guns.
Click to expand...

With 40%(?) of the homicides in the United State non-gun related, do you really think there was big chance that this deranged person would have never tried to kill anyone if he didn't have a gun? I am not arguing that he could have killed more or less with a non-gun method, but it appears that you claim the gun was somehow to blame and not the person.
 
scarlettinlondon said:
I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether you are talking about legal or illegal gun ownership. If it's legal owners you are talking about, then no, having the gun does not make them more likely to commit crime. If you are talking about illegal gun owners, then yes, having the gun makes it easier for them to exercise their propensity to break the law. In their case though, more gun laws would not change that.
 
Ryan Lanza, 24, brother of gunman Adam Lanza, 20, tells authorities that his younger brother is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a “personality disorder.” Neighbors described the younger man to ABC as “odd” and displaying characteristics associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Click to expand...

Personality disorder?
 
scarlettinlondon said:
Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse.
Click to expand...

New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago all have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the country. They are also some of the easiest places in the country to get a gun to use in a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom