• 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!

Stankape,

So if he killed one, but could have killed more, he's still a "mass murderer"?

But your (almost) withdrawal of the "school shooting" comment is noted.
 
lionking said:
Stankape,

So if he killed one, but could have killed more, he's still a "mass murderer"?

But your (almost) withdrawal of the "school shooting" comment is noted.
Click to expand...

Well, not technically (as far as the definition used by the FBI anyway) but the FBI WOULD consider him as a mass killer via his profile and crime committed. I mean they would expect his history and motives to be similar to that of mass killers.

example for clarification:

Person A walks into a mall with 2 rifles and 4 handguns, killing 20 people before being taken down by the cops

Person B walks into a mall with 2 rifles and 4 handguns and kills 2 people and wounds 12 before being taken down by the cops


Both are killers, both obviously intended to inflict mass carnage, one was just more successful (due to lots of underlying variables, nerve, accuracy, time it took to report the crime and the proximity of LEO to the scene)

But I think we can all agree, that it's the same type of crime. One just had more success.



ETA: and the school is just a setting as I said, a University is considered a school here in the USA, (in fact the Virginia Tech shooting is considered the worst "school" shooting in our history). But it's not separate from other mass killings, same type of mentality, same type of motivation. Getting even/showing the world that they are important...etc
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
@ Metullus and Autolite

Re defining the guns to be banned, if you are serious the definition is an issue, then propose a definition or give a reason why one type of weapon should not be included.

The BS both of you are trying to pull is to challenge the use of particular terms. That is a phony distraction.
Click to expand...
Sigh...

I am not trying to challenge anything. You used a term, I merely asked what you meant by your use of that term. You are proposing tighter controls over certain weapons, I am merely asking which weapons you want affected. I am trying to understand what it is that you propose.

If you are not willing or able to define your own terms or to discuss the ramifications of your position, then fine, just say so. I'm fine with it. It is not my problem if you cannot articulate your position.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Yes, people deliberately build swimming pools. Yes, people deliberately answer their cell phones while they're driving. Yes, people deliberately walk out on a golf course and lift a conductive rod high into the air. Yes, people deliberately hop into boats and head out on the water. Yes, people deliberately drink alcohol then get behind the wheel of a car.
Click to expand...
lol - lifting a golf club in the air is just like killing 26 innocent people with an assault weapon. Wow, just wow.

Oh, and drunk driving is illegal, did you know that? In many states/municipalities so is using a cell phone while driving.

I removed your sophomoric claptrap.
 
Last edited:
joesixpack said:
No, that's me pointing out that you're not really interested in saving lives if the means of death is more important than the result.
Click to expand...
I suppose you feel better arguing against your strawman then what I actually said, have fun with it.
joesixpack said:
I don't think you are able to discern what it is that they may or may not be saying because it seems that your righteous indignation is getting the better of you. What they are pointing out is that there is an inconsistency in the attitude of those who would cheerfully take a civil liberty in the name of saving lives when other actions would save as many or more lives without taking a civil liberty from those who didn't actually commit the murders (or any murders). The fact that more people are willing to suppress a civil right in the wake of a sensational murder of children than were before should set off some sort of self examination as to the reason why that would be.
Click to expand...
yawn, more strawman going up in flames.
joesixpack said:
I suggest you follow the posts and observations made by the more dispassionate people in this discussion rather than looking for reason to cast those who disagree with you as cold hearted gun lovers.
Click to expand...
Well that's 3 for 3. Let me know when you are able to argue against something I've actually said.



Edit - I've said what I have to say, it's just getting redundant now. There is no point in continuing to debate people who think society should treat events such as someone shooting their way into a school and murdering 26 people, holding a golf club in the air, or having a swimming pool as essentially equivalent.
 
Last edited:
Montag451 said:
I am beginning to embrace the car analogy. How about

All guns to be registered
All guns to have insurance
All gun and storage to be inspected
Each owner has to attend classes and pass to get a licence, with a new set if classes and a new licence for each type of gun
If found using a gun while drunk, dangerously, drugs etc then you lose your licence and your gun for a period Retest to get it backIf you have a medical condition that should disqualify you from owning a gun then you can't
If you make the gun available to others then you take full responsibility
I would even add that if your gun was stolen due to ack of care in proper storage hen you take responsibility

None if these seem overly draconian and still allow you the right to own, but simply enforce the responsibility.

Seems fair, no?
Click to expand...

As only one of those actually applies to owning a car, no, not fair.

But you can have this one

If found using a gun while drunk, dangerously, drugs etc then you lose your licence and your gun for a period​

Anyone disagree? No? Then we have compromise, Sorry Cheney.
 
DavidJames said:
lol - lifting a golf club in the air is just like killing 26 innocent people with an assault weapon. Wow, just wow.
Click to expand...


Yet more people have died in the past 30 years lifting a golf club in the air than have died in mass shootings and spree killings. Does the fact that golf course deaths are easily preventable and gun deaths aren't so much make it easy to flippantly dismiss the dead golfers? How many dead golfers are worth a gunshot victim?

Oh, and drunk driving is illegal, did you know that?
Click to expand...


Did you know that legal or not, people choose to get in their cars and drive after drinking, killing nearly the same number of people as are murdered by guns? Dead kids are dead. You can defend your self righteousness by nitpicking the differences between choosing one method where the intent is to kill a particular kid or choosing to engage in a behavior which kills random strangers. Explain that difference to the loved ones of the dead people, okay?

In many states/municipalities so is using a cell phone while driving.
Click to expand...


Sort of like how it's illegal to shoot people with a gun in all but defense situations. But people are killing their children and other people's children by choosing to talk on their cell phones while driving anyway, legal or not. They're risking their lives and the lives of total strangers at rates significantly higher than people are killing others in mass murders and spree killings. You go ahead and explain to the parents of the dead child how insignificant it is that people choose to answer their phones while they're driving. See if they understand your trivializing it because it's illegal.
 
DavidJames said:
Edit - I've said what I have to say, it's just getting redundant now. There is no point in continuing to debate people who think society should treat events such as someone shooting their way into a school and murdering 26 people, holding a golf club in the air, or having a swimming pool as essentially equivalent.
Click to expand...

Speaking of straw, no one has said that.
 
lionking said:
Your ignorance is really showing here. Please find one, just one, Australian who calls a university a school. Monash Uni (my son works there) has a massive number of mature aged and overseas students. Nope, no children.

And two deaths is now a mass killing? Quite pathetic really.

ETA the average age of an Australian Uni student is 27.

http://www.acer.edu.au/media/growth...university-students-but-still-underrepresent/

Knowing the student profile at Monash I expect it to be older.

School? Nope.
Click to expand...

Or a Brit
 
zeggman said:
It isn't easy to smash a hard drive. I wonder if he used bullets.
Click to expand...

The last media report I read claims that the guy used a hammer and/or a screwdriver on the hard drives but that the FBI are still working on it. They seem to be implying that it could still be possible to extract some information...
 
Last edited:
Autolite said:
The last media report I read claims that the guy used a hammer and/or a screwdriver on the hard drives but that the FBI are still working on it. They seem to be implying that it could still be possible to extract some information...
Click to expand...

I'd be very surprised if they can't access something. I know that data can be obtained from hard disks almost melted by fire.
 
fuelair said:
and at the time I wrote that I thought it was sarcastic-now it appears to actually be true!!!!!
Click to expand...

I have only just read that the mother was killed in her sleep!

I haven't seen or heard anything yet reference whether or not the firearms were secured in any manner...
 
Last edited:
scarlettinlondon said:
I want to say this.

It is my view that gun ownership for civilians is AT LEAST partially responsible for this tragedy.

Any country that allows gun ownership for civilians is being wilfully blind to their part of the blame

English people feel no less free for not being allowed to carry/own guns

We don't have the freedom to carry guns

We don't have the freedom to fear this kind of tragedy

We don't have to train our children in schools what to do if there is a gunman in the building.

Ban guns. You won't regret it
Click to expand...

 
Biscuit said:
Or if as a society we treated guns as more of a responsibility and less of right. If we could just admit that guns do kill people.
Click to expand...

Well said. As a Brit I simply cannot understand the attitude towards guns that is held by many Americans.
 
I've been following the various post-Newtown and the pro-gun advocates have convinced me that general gun control is very unlikely to make any difference as to whether this kind of spree killing is likely to happen. In any case, in the context of U.S. gun deaths, spree killings are very rare and a tiny proportion of annual gun deaths are attributable to spree killings.

If the government was somehow able to enact legislation and put into place measures to eliminate all school-based spree killings (which would presumably be a combination of locking down schools, aggressive proactive management of the mentally ill and gun control), it wouldn't have a measurable impact on the total number of gun deaths. It would also likely result in schools being like prisons (armed guards, high security, regular drills) except in this case the idea is to keep the bad people out.

If there is an appetite to reduce the number of gun deaths in the U.S. then it would make sense to try to address the largest causes of death (and those which are disproportionately high if the U.S. is compared to developed countries):

  • Suicides - although the U.S. suicide rate isn't worse than comparable countries maybe there isn't too much scope for improvement here. Just getting people to switch method of suicide doesn't sound like a good idea.
  • Accidental deaths - there are several hundred accidental deaths and many thousand non-fatal accidental injuries annually: Source. Reducing these could be a reasonable objective
  • Gun-related homicides - these do seem to be very high

Accidental deaths and (heat of the moment) homicides don't necessarily require restrictions on gun ownership (though fewer guns would result in fewer deaths if the rate of death per gun remains constant) but better education and/or more secure gun storage may make a difference. Of course that would restrict the use of guns for home defence (a gun that's safely locked away with ammunition stored separately is useless for home defence) - but personally I'm not sure whether that's a bad thing. I've searched for, but cannot find, a study which compares the extra deaths relating guns being in the house against lives saved by having guns in the house.
 
scarlettinlondon said:
No objection to hearing his views.

I would differ. I would prefer to live in a country where only the police and the military have guns that one where everyone, including the crazies have access to guns
Click to expand...

Exactly.

This is a genuine question, not an anti American rant: Why are many Americans so paranoid about their government, that they feel the need to be armed in case the government tries to become a dictatorship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom