• 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!

joesixpack said:
Ah, that's new to me. I haven't lived there since '05, and I'd never even considered the medical marijuana issue. I suppose it makes sense. My ex used to get rather violent when she was high (which at the end was 24/7), though I know it doesn't effect most people that way.
Click to expand...

It's federal law, one of the questions on the 4473 - "are you a user of or addicted to..."
 
Ambrosia said:
Thoughts from another naive European.

You already have gun control in the US. A US citizen can't go out and arm themselves with the latest fully automatic weaponry. You can't get yourselves mini guns.

I don't understand how the government couldn't shift the bar to say, for example, semi-auto weapons are now effectively banned or handguns over a certain calibre are now banned, in the same way that full auto weapons are presently controlled. You could do that without affecting the rights you have under the 2nd Amendment (at least no moreso than is already the case)
Click to expand...

Far too sensible a suggestion for the worshippers at the Holy Church of the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Ambrosia said:
Thoughts from another naive European.

You already have gun control in the US. A US citizen can't go out and arm themselves with the latest fully automatic weaponry. You can't get yourselves mini guns.

I don't understand how the government couldn't shift the bar to say, for example, semi-auto weapons are now effectively banned or handguns over a certain calibre are now banned, in the same way that full auto weapons are presently controlled. You could do that without affecting the rights you have under the 2nd Amendment (at least no moreso than is already the case)
Click to expand...

Throwing standard title one firearms (as semi-auto non-National Firearms Act are considered legally) into the NFA runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Heller case, which stated that individuals have a right to possess firearms "in common use" for personal protection - no "sporting use" nonsense is applicable. A handgun was the specific firearm in question in Heller, but the use of the term "in common use" becomes a real problem for the anti-gun segment as the most popular class of firearms in America for the last twenty years are the rifles, handguns and shotguns they'd choose to ban.

PS -you're correct that an individual can't get the newest full auto tackle, the cut-off for registration of transferable examples being 5-19-86, but if you've got the money, Mini-guns are available- in the 200 K $ range that is.
 
lionking said:
Far to sensible a suggestion for the worshippers at the Holy Church of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

When you don't have facts, call it a cult.

There's a grand total of one anti-gunner I've encountered on this board so far that has enough knowledge to have a decent discussion with. and it's not a subject of the commonwealth.
 
My 2 cents

The fact is people will always want to hurt other people and when they will do this is unpredictable.
The best we can do is reduce their abilities to achieve their goal as much as possible.
Any weapon which is designed to improve an individuals ability to cause harm is what any pro-active stance should be concentrating on getting rid of.
The rest of the discussion is just irrelevant noise.

It really is that simple.
 
Rat said:


In short, the media do precisely everything wrongly. This is pointed out every single time, and they continue to present it this way because it's want their audience want, or at least what they think their audience want.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that most excellent link.
 
Rat said:
As has been asked, does 'psychoactive drugs' include alcohol? I strongly suspect that a lot of firearm killings are under the influence of alcohol. There are thousands of alcoholics about, but unless they're actively seeking treatment, there's nothing to stop them getting weapons.
Click to expand...

I would say it should; but unfortunately there's no way to keep track of who's buying or not buying alcohol.

But, psychiatric drugs are already very strictly controlled in a way which can accommodate the creation of a list of users.

Look, if we can't (or shouldn't) ban guns and we can't (or shouldn't) try to prevent mentally-ill people from accessing weapons, what the heck is left to actually do? We may as well quit all the "we can't be silent" BS because yes, we're going to continue to be silent - because there's nothing we can do, evidently. Nothing whatsoever.
 
Checkmite said:
I would say it should; but unfortunately there's no way to keep track of who's buying or not buying alcohol.

But, psychiatric drugs are already very strictly controlled in a way which can accommodate the creation of a list of users.

Look, if we can't (or shouldn't) ban guns and we can't (or shouldn't) try to prevent mentally-ill people from accessing weapons, what the heck is left to actually do? We may as well quit all the "we can't be silent" BS because yes, we're going to continue to be silent - because there's nothing we can do, evidently. Nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Of course there are things we can do. That the best course of action, or at least the most realistic course, doesn't (or might not) include governmental restrictions doesn't mean we can 'do nothing'.

There are plenty of social and cultural reasons young men don't seek help for a plethora of issues, including mental health ones. We don't need a law to talk about those for example. Research into what treatments work, support for groups that address these things, finding out why people sometimes feel violence is their only, or most sensible, recourse are more examples.

It isn't the most emotionally satisfying thing to feel however. We tend to want something to attack, something to ban, something to force. A lot of the real work, the most important advancements, are long, incremental and difficult.
 
dafydd said:
Isn't it lucky that European football hooligans don't have easy access to firearms.
Click to expand...

But given the number of deaths and injuries, shouldn't football matches have been prohibited from being played in front of an audience (at least in England). I mean, no one really needs to go to a football match do they?

Think of all the tragedies (Hillsborough, Heysel, St Andrew's etc) that could have been avoided if we'd just banned people from going to see a match live. (Far more death and injury than all the English gun massacres).
 
I watched the President's comment on the tragedy. He looked genuinely stressed and emotional about it. But will there be anything he can do about it?

I hope other countries know that not all of us are a bunch of gun nuts here in America. I have said in the past that although I don't own a gun I respect the right of someone to own one to protect their home or to hunt. But now some of these weapons just seem like murder machines getting in the hands of the mentally ill. And not just one gun. A whole stockpile of weapons.

Why can't we do something about this? The NRA?
 
tyr_13 said:
Research into what treatments work, support for groups that address these things, finding out why people sometimes feel violence is their only, or most sensible, recourse are more examples.
Click to expand...

Do you think this guy, who walked into a school and started shooting at children - the same ones, over and over again evidently - somehow reasoned his way into that course of action?

Nevermind that. Tell me something: how do we learn which treatments prevent these massacres, and which do not? How is that even possible? The very notion that it is, is the most empty wishing upon a star. It's an excuse to do nothing except hope other people who are smarter than us "do something".
 
Checkmite said:
Do you think this guy, who walked into a school and started shooting at children - the same ones, over and over again evidently - somehow reasoned his way into that course of action?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

Nevermind that.
Click to expand...

Oh, too late.

Tell me something: how do we learn which treatments prevent these massacres, and which do not? How is that even possible? The very notion that it is, is the most empty wishing upon a star. It's an excuse to do nothing except hope other people who are smarter than us "do something".
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about simply hoping? Where did I say something about people smarter than us? Where did I say we should do nothing?

What I suggested was hard work and advocacy for both better tools to treat and identify these things before they happen and to change social forces so that people won't want to do these things.

Now it simply isn't possible to prevent these things completely, and it would be rather hard to measure 'success' at preventing something so statistically rare and sporadic. However, it's difficult, not impossible. The things I suggest also have other benefits too of course besides reducing spree killings.

If you want to stamp your foot because I disagree that the only choices are do what you propose and do nothing, that's fine. But please try to read and understand what I've said before objecting.
 
Just a bit of a thought exercise here.

Wouldn't the best thing to do to prevent school shootings is to ban the reporting of school shootings? My guess is a lot of these guys feed their sick minds on the coverage of such events....
 
Autolite said:
Well, a mother in Montreal was recently arrested and charged for the murder of her three young children by drowning.

Perhaps you could go and start another thread addressing the issue of easy access to bathtubs and why these 'bath-tub nuts' feel that they have the right to walk into a store and purchase a bathing device, no questions asked!

This is certainly something that needs to be discussed now that the focus seems to be on the availability of the implement used in the crime rather than the perpetrator...
Click to expand...

I think earlier somebody compared firearms to skateboards and bricks, but you somehow managed to surpass that burst of foolishness. Well done.
 
Caper said:
Just a bit of a thought exercise here.

Wouldn't the best thing to do to prevent school shootings is to ban the reporting of school shootings? My guess is a lot of these guys feed their sick minds on the coverage of such events....
Click to expand...

Maybe not ban but at least strictly limit. For example, not showing the perpetrators face or mentioning his name might be a good start. I think that's a good start.
 
Last edited:
Caper said:
Just a bit of a thought exercise here.

Wouldn't the best thing to do to prevent school shootings is to ban the reporting of school shootings? My guess is a lot of these guys feed their sick minds on the coverage of such events....
Click to expand...

I think the fact that these have escalated in frequency at the same rate (and timeframe) as 24 hr news coverage has increased isn't a coincidence.

We've had these gun laws for a long time. School shootings have happened since the 1800's, but not at this same frequency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom