School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Checkmite]

Where did I say that?

You specifically said, research into why people feel that committing these acts is "the only, or most sensible, course of action". That implies you think there's reasoning there to dissect and understand.

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.

What do these things even mean? They're indistinct and nebulous.

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.

But this isn't something WE can do.

You and I can press to get a law passed, or policy made. That's something WE can do.

"Research" is something we have to hope other people do, because you and I aren't the kinds of scientists who can meaningfully contribute to that line of inquiry. That's what I mean about doing nothing and hoping that other people do something. Wishing that other people will "do research", based on the blind hope that if enough "research" is done a solution must and will present itself at some point because...it just has to.

I guess in the meantime these things will have to keep happening so that we can "research" what methods don't seem to be working. I suppose if I try hard enough I can convince myself that by quietly allowing researchers to address the problem that's the same thing as "doing something".

 

[RedRatSnake]

Check this out ~ Westboro Lunatics Planning Sandy Hook Protest

http://cryliberty.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/westboro-lunatics-planning-sandy-hook-protest/

 

[lionking]

Check this out ~ Westboro Lunatics Planning Sandy Hook Protest

http://cryliberty.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/westboro-lunatics-planning-sandy-hook-protest/

Oh dear. Another "victory" for free speech I suppose.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think something our Euro bretheren might be missing (due to their continual utterance of "a small minority giving up their rights for the good of all") is that it ISN'T a small minority here. There are an estimated 200+ million legal gun owners in the USA (and god knows how many illegal) it's the majority of the population. Hence any sort of legislation isn't going to be viewed very kindly and legislators sure like getting re-elected....

Got a citation for this number?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The latest data is 270 million gun owners in the USA, with 88.8 guns per 100 people, number 1 in the world. Number 2 is Yemen with 54.8 per 100 and the England and Wales has 6.2 per 100.

No. No. No.

Read it more closely.

270,000,000 civilian firearms - 88.8 for every 100 people
Ranked 1 in the world for civilian gun ownership​

 

[Profanz]

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....

Yeah, lets not talk about it and maybe it will just go away.

 

[Travis]

Is this because you are a felon or what? As far as I know there are no laws preventing a non-felon from owning a firearm. I owned a few guns when I lived in CA (and bought two, legally, while living there).

I was treated for depression. Which in California is enough to disqualify you.

It also kept me out of the Army.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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.

Just wondering -- just how much would a soldier in a war have to accomplish to be rewarded with this much coverage? Take out all of the Taliban by himself?

 

[jimbob]

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....

See Rat's link:

Usually I don't bother with youtube, but this time my showing the media it is pretty useful.

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.

 

[Autolite]

I think earlier somebody compared firearms to skateboards and bricks, but you somehow managed to surpass that burst of foolishness. Well done.

It was an absurd comment made in response to an absurd comment.

Look at it in the context that it was presented...

 

[Autolite]

Far too sensible a suggestion for the worshippers at the Holy Church of the Second Amendment.

I think it has more to do with the banning of firearms becoming a slippery slope.

Many want to ban all small calibre semi-automatic rifles by calling them "assault weapons" (which factually, by definition, just isn't the case). Others want to ban medium to large calibre single shot bolt action rifles because they consider them to be "sniper rifles".

In Canada, there are prohibitions on small, light calibre hand guns because they can be easily concealed while others want to ban large, heavy cailbre hand guns because they claim that nobody "needs" that much firepower.

There are counties with bans and prohibitions now in place based ONLY on a firearm's cosmetic appearance. IIRC, Germany has a ban on any rifle that is black in colour and Canada has a prohibition on a semi-automatic only rifle just because it superficially resembles an AK-47.

There was even a report a couple of years ago about an elementary school that wanted to ban the word "gun" from their books...

 

[Cain]

It was an absurd comment made in response to an absurd comment.

Look at it in the context that it was presented...

Maybe I can help you understand with an analogy. When it comes to gay marriage, opponents sometimes ask, "What's gonna happen next -- will we let a woman marry her dog?" Now that's a deliberately absurd argument: marrying dogs is clearly ridiculous. But it's also a mistaken comparison... much like your dumb-as-dog-**** comment.

There are many viable methods for a woman to murder her children in the privacy of her own home. There are not nearly as many realistic options available for someone who wants to publicly slaughter 20 first-graders and a half-dozen adults. I'm just saying.

 

[Rat]

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....

Yes, you don't actually have to not report them, just not sensationalize them in the way that they usually do. It's not that different to the guidelines that the Samaritans keep pushing for reporting suicide; they've been pushing these for years and some news sources seem to be taking them on. If you sensationalize the reporting of a suicide, there will be more of them following.

Perhaps this needs the equivalent of the Samaritans to keep pushing for changes to reporting methods of school shootings and the like, but I can't think of anyone appropriate who has the swing that the Samaritans have.

 

[Darat]

And that is the point, of course. A minor sacrifice by a tiny minority for the greater good of society.

The gun owners didn't squeal much because they knew they were on the wrong side of history.

Mike

I'd say that it was more because they were so few. A few years ago I looked into the statistics regarding gun ownership in the UK and found that the figures showed that the law only impacted on about 60,000 people and hardly changed the ratio of number of legally owned guns to people in the UK. I the figure was 1:20 before the change and was 1:20 afterwards.

 

[Caper]

Check this out ~ Westboro Lunatics Planning Sandy Hook Protest

http://cryliberty.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/westboro-lunatics-planning-sandy-hook-protest/

I think this is awesome... I feel so much rage, but the gunman killed himself.... These people are now where I can place that anger.... I feel if they show up at the scene with their signs.... some of them might end up dead or really hurt.... as long as it's not the kids.... I don't care.

I actually was half joking when I brought that up earlier in the thread, that they would go..... even for a group that protests soldiers funerals, this seems extremely bold.

 

[Noztradamus]

Yeah, lets not talk about it and maybe it will just go away.

Totally agree with you that it's worth trying. Deprived of the opportunity to become notorious, many of these perps would not proceed.

50% reduction would be worth it. I suspect actual reduction in incidents and casualties would be 83%.

Speculating on the Sandy Hook case, maybe it was opportunistic, formed on the spur of the moment after Lanza killed his mother and then decided to go out on a blaze of infamy.

 

[John Jones]

In this whole thread, the only reasons given for ownership of automatics and semi-automatics is that they are fun and cool.

Semi-automatics fire faster and often need to be reloaded less frequently.

 

[John Jones]

Americans do require a license to purchase and/or own a handgun. Long guns do not require a license, but a criminal background check is required.

No. I own handguns. No license was required to purchase or own them. They did do a criminal background check.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think it has more to do with the banning of firearms becoming a slippery slope.

Many want to ban all small calibre semi-automatic rifles by calling them "assault weapons" (which factually, by definition, just isn't the case). Others want to ban medium to large calibre single shot bolt action rifles because they consider them to be "sniper rifles".

In Canada, there are prohibitions on small, light calibre hand guns because they can be easily concealed while others want to ban large, heavy cailbre hand guns because they claim that nobody "needs" that much firepower.

There are counties with bans and prohibitions now in place based ONLY on a firearm's cosmetic appearance. IIRC, Germany has a ban on any rifle that is black in colour and Canada has a prohibition on a semi-automatic only rifle just because it superficially resembles an AK-47.

There was even a report a couple of years ago about an elementary school that wanted to ban the word "gun" from their books...

I feel like I'm watching a highly irrational alien species post on an internet forum. It's quite surreal.

I'm not even sure quite what logical fallacy this is, unless it's just an outright non sequitur. Maybe making the perfect the enemy of the good?

The idea that we should not control gun ownership, because if we control gun ownership it might (shock! horror!) be done in irrational ways seems incredibly bizarre to me. Yes, sane gun control laws are vastly preferable to silly gun control laws based on misplaced panic, but at the same time slightly silly gun control laws are vastly preferable to none at all.

The Australian experience shows that gun control can be very simple, even in a country with lots of rural areas where people genuinely need firearms. You pass laws saying you can have a gun if you can show you need one, and you can have a gun that is suitable for the particular task you need to do, and "I wanna shoot at bad guys!" doesn't count as a need. Boom, done, problem solved.

 

[Nessie]

No. No. No.

Read it more closely.

270,000,000 civilian firearms - 88.8 for every 100 people
Ranked 1 in the world for civilian gun ownership​

Apologies. From this source http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

In 2010

Households with a gun 40-45%, 47-53 million
Adults with a gun 30-34%, 70-80 million

So between 70 and 80 million adults own the 270 million guns, each one of those adults has about 3.5 guns.