• 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!

gumboot said:
According to the FBI, violent crime involves any crime where there is force or the threat of force, so their categorisation is fairly broad too.

I suppose my point is that US gun violence can't be explained by being a dramatically more violent society, as the UK is very violent, but has virtually no gun crime.
Click to expand...

The link I'd posted earlier showed a far greater non-gun homicide rate for the US than for the UK. His numbers come from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
 
Autolite said:
Well, I think we've established that the 'anti' crowd, for one thing, are keen on restricting firearms based only on the gun's cosmetic appearance. There have been links posted that underscore this agenda.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm kinda anti-gun myself, but since I'm pro-freedom, I'm usually conflicted on the issue.
 
joesixpack said:
The link I'd posted earlier showed a far greater non-gun homicide rate for the US than for the UK. His numbers come from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
Click to expand...


It doesn't really. If anything that source reflects comparable non-firearm homicide rates. Of course, "homicide" rates aren't really the issue in any event; intentionl homicide rates are the issue. And on that point the non-firearm rate in the US is fairly close to the UK, at around 1.3 versus 1.2 per 100,000.
 
thaiboxerken said:
But did suicide rates overall go down? Did people just find different ways to commit suicide?
Click to expand...

Suicide rates in Australia have been going down since 2000. I have not yet found data that goes back to before the gun buyback of 1996 and 1997.

ETA

From Suicide in Australia: meta-analysis of rates and methods of suicide between 1988 and 2007
Considered nationally, the falls in male suicide were due to significant reductions in shooting, gassing and poisoning, and occurred despite an increase in suicide by hanging. There were similar changes in the methods of suicide used by females. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that that measures to control the availability of firearms, the requirement for new cars to be fitted with catalytic converters and the decline in the prescription of tricyclic antidepressants have resulted in a decline in total suicide rates.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Society has decided that swimming and playing football are socially acceptable. Rules are developed to limit the dangers inherit within each. At some point should the risk of danger become unacceptable, society may decide such activities are unacceptable.

Society has decided that someone killing someone else is socially acceptable. Rules are developed to, as much as possible, eliminate that activity.

Do you understand the concept?

Our society has determined that some activities are okay and some are not. Why do you insist on conflating activities which have been clearly determined to be different?
Click to expand...
I think you're the one conflating activities which are different.

Society has decided that responsible gun ownership is socially acceptable.

If someone went off the deep end a few times a year and killed children by throwing them into a swimming pool, I doubt that anyone would be wringing their hands about how we simply MUST do something about all those dreadful pools.

Yet swimming pools kill move than 200 children every year without any murderers taking a hand in their deaths. That's ten times the number of children who were killed in this incident, and it happens each and every year.

Are people calling the talk shows painting poignant pictures of Christmas presents which will go unreceived, asking for the hundredth time "How long are we willing to let this continue?"

That twenty children died in Connecticut at the hands of a monster is a tragedy. That two hundred children died this year because of a mindless pool of water is a bigger tragedy, though less spectacular, less "National Newsworthy". Parents don't miss their children any less if their deaths were unintentional.

I don't know why anyone thinks it's wise to formulate public policy to handle a one-time event such as the Newtown murders.
 
scarlettinlondon said:
This website describes the history, background and events leading up to the Nazi attack upon the martyr village of Oradour-sur-Glane in the Haute-Vienne Department of Vichy France during WWII. This atrocity was carried out on Saturday 10th June 1944 by soldiers of the Der Führer Regiment of the 2nd Waffen-SS Panzer Division, Das Reich. On that day they killed a total of 642 men, women and children and destroyed the entire village without giving any reason for their action to the inhabitants and to this day there is no universally accepted explanation for the massacre.
Click to expand...

Boy, I'll bet those people wish they had a few hundred assault rifles with 30-round clips.
 
Multivac said:
Do you really want to live in a society where school teachers need to be armed in the classroom?
Click to expand...

No, I don't, however, if that's what it takes to keep our kids safe, it's worth a shot.

If it doesn't work, we'll have to try something else.

If it has unintended consequences, we'll have to try to make it better, or try something else completely.

I'm not leaving my country. Not because a bunch of jackasses want to shoot kids...
 
Multivac said:
No, that doesn't sound outrageous at all. It sounds bat-**** crazy!
Click to expand...

Why? People carry concealed weapons all over the place in the US, (where it's allowed) and rarely, VERY rarely, does it ever result in an accidental discharge, or a crime.

IIRC, Florida's had, in the last 10 years I think, less than 100 CWPs revoked because of some kind of crime, or some other reason.

And we've got almost 1,000,000 CWP holders in Florida. And it's not a free for all either. It's not the wild wild west like many claimed it would become.
 
zeggman said:
I think you're the one conflating activities which are different.

Society has decided that responsible gun ownership is socially acceptable.

If someone went off the deep end a few times a year and killed children by throwing them into a swimming pool, I doubt that anyone would be wringing their hands about how we simply MUST do something about all those dreadful pools.

Yet swimming pools kill move than 200 children every year without any murderers taking a hand in their deaths. That's ten times the number of children who were killed in this incident, and it happens each and every year.

Are people calling the talk shows painting poignant pictures of Christmas presents which will go unreceived, asking for the hundredth time "How long are we willing to let this continue?"

That twenty children died in Connecticut at the hands of a monster is a tragedy. That two hundred children died this year because of a mindless pool of water is a bigger tragedy, though less spectacular, less "National Newsworthy". Parents don't miss their children any less if their deaths were unintentional.

I don't know why anyone thinks it's wise to formulate public policy to handle a one-time event such as the Newtown murders.
Click to expand...

You keep on bringing up swimming pools (and paper cuts no doubt if kids died that way) when there is absolutely no comparison between accidental deaths by drowning and murder by firearm. I mean, seriously?
 
scarlettinlondon said:
If you are sincere in your wish to explain to me, then explain the bit that I want explaining, not the bit you want to explain. I was asking if you were having a dig at the French and the second world was occupation.

Hint it's about the French. Therefore the word, France, or French should appear in your explanation.

If you need further help you can cut and paste one of these two options.

1. Yes, I was having a dig at the French needing our help in the Second World War


or


2. No, I was referring to the French as public spirited citizens who call the police when threatened like responsible bods and who do not take the law into their own hands by blasting away willy nilly as they choose.
Click to expand...

Since his and my opinion is the same, let me explain.

It has nothing to do with you, or anyone else being French. Nothing.

What is ironic, is that people (maybe not you specifically) want to ban guns like they do in France, or the UK, or wherever, because it's too violent, or because guns cause death, or similar moral objections. But yet, they will have no problem calling the police, whom have guns, to come and possibly use their guns to defend that person's life.

WRT: WWII and the French needing our assistance. Don't be so insensitive. Everyone needs help from time to time. We were glad to do it, and was worth every penny and life we all paid. Don't be so dang sensitive.

Hope this helps you understand his point.

Cheers!
 
triforcharity said:
What is ironic, is that people (maybe not you specifically) want to ban guns like they do in France, or the UK, or wherever, because it's too violent, or because guns cause death, or similar moral objections. But yet, they will have no problem calling the police, whom have guns, to come and possibly use their guns to defend that person's life.
Click to expand...

Is this meant to be a criticism of these who call the police when under threat? Like, you know, virtually the entire civilised world? Unbelievable.
 
jimbob said:
Interesting because a lot of the pro life anti choice proponents are gun proponents.

Meet Robert Prey


Looks like a pro gun pro lifer.


Outside the US, in other OECD countries, people tend to be more pro choice and more anti gun than the US.
Click to expand...

Please don't lump us in with RP. Please?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Is this meant to be a criticism of these who call the police when under threat? Like, you know, virtually the entire civilised world? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Not at all. But again, nice strawman.....

It's the IRONY of the fact that many people who are against guns for moral or ethical reasons, will call someone else, who has a gun, to possibly use that weapon to take another persons life, which they object to for moral or ethical reasons to begin with.

But way to twist my words, yet again. I cannot say it any more clearly.
 
lionking said:
You keep on bringing up swimming pools (and paper cuts no doubt if kids died that way) when there is absolutely no comparison between accidental deaths by drowning and murder by firearm. I mean, seriously?
Click to expand...
Sure there's a comparison: the number of preventable deaths of children by firearms is a small fraction of the number of preventable deaths by swimming pool.

I mean, see?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom