• 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!

Yeah but that's a bit of a smokescreen, isn't it ? It's like comparing lighters and ovens to bombs because both can cause fires, when we're actually discussing arson.

Yes, it's like that. You want to discuss "murder" because that takes most of the drowning and auto deaths off the table. I'm discussing "avoidable deaths" because it doesn't.

If lighters are responsible for more arson than bombs are, arson (like murder) is illegal, and bombs are already banned, your desire to restrict lighters as well would be comparable to your current desire to restrict guns.
 
Governments shouldn't be funding research designed to undermine it's existing constitution.

why not?

Leaving aside the gun stuff for a moment.

What if the constitution was wrong?

What if the people who elected the government wanted the constitution investigated and altered on that particular point?

Governments are supposed to act in the interests of the people who elected them, at the time they were elected. If part of the constitution is outdated and needs investigating/amending the government absolutely should fund research into that point.

Most of the time such research would come back with the answer "no the Constitution is just as it is"

If you take the view that the constitution is some sacred document, then you're in the realms of people that revere Holy books.
 
Their research into anything gun related was defunded.

Good. There's plenty of other departments in the US that could more accurately study that. The CDC has no business researching gun violence. I feel that psychologists and legal types combined would do much better.

ETA: And who denied that the CDC had their funding for research into gun violence was removed? I don't recall anyone denying that...I could be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
Good. There's plenty of other departments in the US that could more accurately study that. The CDC has no business researching gun violence. I feel that psychologists and legal types combined would do much better.

ETA: And who denied that the CDC had their funding for research into gun violence was removed? I don't recall anyone denying that...I could be wrong though.

I don't agree, the CDC is more than capable. Also, there is a reason that the gun nutz wanted to defund research into gun deaths by the CDC, and it's not because another department could do a better job.

It wasn't you that claimed the CDC funding wasn't removed. Some other poster said my claim about defunding was a conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree, the CDC is more than capable. Also, there is a reason that the gun nutz wanted to defund research into gun deaths by the CDC, and it's not because another department could do a better job.

So you think that doctors, surgeons, and other medical personnel discussing laws and how they're applicable, and how they should be applied, as opposed to, I dunno, lawyers and prosecutors and such? I'll disagree 100%.

You're right. You know what the problem was, at least as far as the NRA is concerned. Remember the article that was linked?

It wasn't you that claimed the CDC funding wasn't removed. Some other poster said my claim about defunding was a conspiracy theory.

Ok, thanks. I'll go look and see what was said...
 
So you think that doctors, surgeons, and other medical personnel discussing laws and how they're applicable, and how they should be applied, as opposed to, I dunno, lawyers and prosecutors and such? I'll disagree 100%.

The CDC was simply doing what doctors and scientific researches do, they were studying the effects of bullets on people that were killed by guns. They were not studying policy or law. For some reason, the gun advocates didn't like it and decided to defund that research.
Do you think lawyers and procecutors should be the ones doing medical research into the trauma of gun shots?
 
Gun nuts in the USA are so crazy and powerful that they've defunded scientific research of firearm injuries and death.

Here's the original post.


However, it's a very broad statement, and suggests that ALL research of firearm injuries has been defunded. Which, of course, we know is not true.

Your next cited article went into detail, but it explained the NRA's position, and what's happened since.

You could have been more clear. But, I do agree that the funding for doctors to be studying legal issues, and social issues (that's a psychology kinda thing) should be removed. Just as lawyers don't need to be studying fire science. they study law.
 
The CDC was simply doing what doctors and scientific researches do, they were studying the effects of bullets on people that were killed by guns. They were not studying policy or law. For some reason, the gun advocates didn't like it and decided to defund that research.
Do you think lawyers and procecutors should be the ones doing medical research into the trauma of gun shots?

That wasn't the problem at all. You're being dishonest.

Go read your link again.
 
That wasn't the problem at all. You're being dishonest.

Go read your link again.

I read the link again. You are correct, they were doing scientific research in how to minimize firearm injuries. I guess in your world, lawyers and politicians are better at doing scientific research on such things than scientists are.
 
I read the link again. You are correct, they were doing scientific research in how to minimize firearm injuries. I guess in your world, lawyers and politicians are better at doing scientific research on such things than scientists are.

And my earlier link, a salon article which I can't search for at the moment as I'm on a phone, stated that the restrictions on language prevented any meaningful research.

ETA: The CDC is allowed to research the effect of guns in videogames.
 
Last edited:
1) Quad wasn't actually talking about teachers and neither was I when I said "people who are statistically least likely to shoot up a school". People in the US with permits to carry a concealed weapon are the least likely to commit a crime. I don't understand why allowing a permitted weapon holder to walk through the doors of a school sounds bat **** crazy unless you feel that there would be some horrifying consequence. I can't see that there is any evidence for that conclusion, and in some municipalities, teachers with concealed carry permits are allowed to carry in their workplace (i.e., the classroom)

2) Again, Quad wasn't talking about teachers in the post to which you responded, but "school staff" is in the discussion so I'll address it; It is highly unlikely that your child would even be aware of the presence of an armed staff member in the school. "Concealed" means concealed. People with permits are required to keep the weapon hidden.

3) One might just as easily say that kids being shot at school was a sign of society's failure. But statistically speaking, the number of children killed at school is far lower than the number of children killed in their own homes. According to ChildHelp, at least five children die every day due to abuse and neglect. Almost none of them with a firearm, by the way. Mass shootings like this are exceptionally rare, And if a magic wand could be waved that would in some way eliminate all mass shootings, the per capita homicide rate wouldn't even budge.

There are a lot of things I would point to as evidence of the "failure" of US society. I could probably fill a couple of pages before I even got to "gun culture". The most glaring failures would be lack of access to healthcare, the outrageous income disparity, and concentration of wealth. If you look at the demography of typical gun violence, you will see that it is concentrated among the very poor. Poverty has more to do with violent crime and homicide than the presence of guns. Other than the emotional content you ascribe to it, allowing a licensed weapon into a school is a non-issue.

4) Everyone gets angry, yet the millions of people licensed to carry concealed weapons aren't shooting people who are rude to them, As I said above, they are the most law abiding demographic in the country. In fact, every weapon holder I've known personally does everything in their power to de-escalate any situation in which they find themselves. It seems like legally permitted gun owners don't seem to get so angry. There's a reason for that.

So again I ask, in light of the information above, what rational reason do you have for banning permitted weapon holders from a school? Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that this will prevent any future school killing, all I'm asking is what is the issue you have with lifting that ban?

I appreciate your long and thoughtful reply, but I think our views are too far apart for us to communicate effectively.

The only times I have sen a gun in real life are on armed police at the airport, or briefly, firing an air rifle at targets in my early teens. Even though the air rifle was fun, I never felt the need to own one, even when it would have been legal to do so.

You label my point of view as irrational but, to me, it is rational that schools, kids and guns do not mix. To me it is irrational to arm school teachers as a way of ensuring kids safety.

You say that mass killings like this are incredibly rare, but how many school shootings have there been this year?

I am very glad that I live in a society where nobody is armed, except some police officers, and where the last school shooting was 16 years ago.
 
Why should the CDC, The Center for DISEASE Control, be researching gun deaths? That's absolutely NOT a disease.


The CDC is also responsible for environmental health, occupational safety and health, and injury prevention amongst other things.
 
FWIW, I have always lived in the UK, and as a schoolboy have fired NATO standard ammunition (5.56mm) albeit from a bolt-action rifle (the L98. variant of the then-unpopular SA80). Friends also fired fully automatic weapons (Bren gun). This was in the school cadet corps, in a state school, which was common in local schools but fairly rare elsewhere.

Like Multivac I never felt the need to own a gun, indeed for as long as I can remember, in the UK significant interest in guns has been considered not only unhealthy but the preserve of losers who read "Guns and Ammo" magazine* and will always live with their parents.


*Several steps below trainspotters.
 
FWIW, I have always lived in the UK, and as a schoolboy have fired NATO standard ammunition (5.56mm) albeit from a bolt-action rifle (the L98. variant of the then-unpopular SA80). Friends also fired fully automatic weapons (Bren gun). This was in the school cadet corps, in a state school, which was common in local schools but fairly rare elsewhere.

Like Multivac I never felt the need to own a gun, indeed for as long as I can remember, in the UK significant interest in guns has been considered not only unhealthy but the preserve of losers who read "Guns and Ammo" magazine* and will always live with their parents.


*Several steps below trainspotters.

I really don't understand how the insults will ever advance any discussion.

I fired guns as a boy, I fired guns while serving in the US Army, and I fire and own several guns today.

I feel no "need" for guns, I have no fear of crime, despite having been mugged, I do not keep any of my guns ready to be fired, and I do not carry any of them around with me at all, except to the range and back, or to a gunsmith and back.

They are not for self defense.

They are not for hunting. The only things they have ever killed were an infestation of minnow eating turtles in a fish pond, at the request of the property owner.

They are a great hobby I have had most of my life, without ever bothering another person.
 
I really don't understand how the insults will ever advance any discussion.

I fired guns as a boy, I fired guns while serving in the US Army, and I fire and own several guns today.

I feel no "need" for guns, I have no fear of crime, despite having been mugged, I do not keep any of my guns ready to be fired, and I do not carry any of them around with me at all, except to the range and back, or to a gunsmith and back.

They are not for self defense.

They are not for hunting. The only things they have ever killed were an infestation of minnow eating turtles in a fish pond, at the request of the property owner.

They are a great hobby I have had most of my life, without ever bothering another person.

I was just highlighting what the situation in the UK is. *There*, interest in guns is generally considered strange.
 
And contrary to what some NRA people think Guns are not illegal in the UK some are restricted
 
I think the UK has a thriving gun culture, based around the guns that are available to the citizens.

They just don't have the variety available, but they do quite well with what they have as far as clubs and ranges and organizations and traditions, etc.
 
I really doubt that interest in guns in the UK is considered strange, given it's rich history of wonderful gunmaking, which continues today.

Then you'd be wrong. The majority of people in the UK have not even seen a firearm close up, outside of a museum, and there is little interest in guns. A desire to own guns on the part of people who have no practical use (e.g. vermin control) for them is seen as strange.
 

Back
Top Bottom