It Has Happened Again...

[Morrigan]

I'm not saying anything.

Liar.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You seem to be making an assumption that responsibility needs to be taken AFTER the gun is obtained, not before.

Perhaps "responsibility" MIGHT be enacted as something like a legal requirement to demonstrate the necessity for and capability of gun ownership BEFORE actual ownership is conferred. For example. Similar idea to passing a strict comprehensive driving test before being allowed drive in public.

The concept of responsibility in this context is not necessarily solely personal responsibility. It can be community based as well.

Although I agree that this doesn't guarantee the elimination of the situation you describe. But then it need not be a "gun" scenario for it to happen either.

For a gun license to require a formal firearms safety and handling course is not a bad idea. (I consider it part of my parental responsibility that before they leave home, my children are so educated and trained.) I know that TX and CT have a formal requirements, for safety and handling courses, for the concealed carry permit.

The NRA offers firearms safety courses all over the country. Depending on locale, so do many police departments.

The NRA are huge proponents of safe, responsible firearms ownership.

DR

 

[Katana]

You wrote: I suggested that removing guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school murders.

You did write it and it was in context. If you wish to modify the statement or clarify it, please do.

Referring to this post:

I suggested that removing guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school murders.

Don't make guns inaccessable to children because might use bombs instead? What kind of logic is that?

You don't think that making guns inaccessable to the people who mostly do the shooting would prevent some of the shootings but will instead make them turn to bombs? That is an interesting conclusion, what evidence do you have to show that this would happen?

I don't need to modify what I said because it was in the context of a discussion which you did not consider when you quoted me. I said that removing all access to guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school as a response to CFL's assertion that removing guns is the solution to school shootings. I did not make the argument that we shouldn't make guns inaccessible to children because they might use bombs instead, which is how you portrayed my statement.

Clear enough?

 

[RandFan]

No, not correct. Some Danes have guns, but, like Canadians, they have them for hunting. Not handguns.

Our cultures are different.

No, when it is relevant.

And in this case it isn't. My argument stands on per capita not raw numbers. Yes we have more guns. We have more people also.

Because the difference in culture (/history) isn't nowhere as big as with Saudi Arabia and the US. Denmark and the US are far more intertwined than the US is with SA.

This is just an assertion.

"Different" does not mean "unequal". You'd be surprised how quick you would fit in in Denmark.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I would. That doesn't prove anything. We veiw guns differently. That's the salient difference.

 

[Tricky]

Our cultures are different.

They are indeed. The cowboy mentality is ingrained into our culture.

And in this case it isn't. My argument stands on per capita not raw numbers. Yes we have more guns. We have more people also.

In my mind, the main problem is that so many of our guns are handguns. Handguns, to quote Lynard Skynard, "are made for killing". Now I realize this has little to do with the school shootings, but in my mind, the whole school shooting thing is just sensationalism. Several people are killed by handguns every day in my city. Dozens nationwide. They don't get press coverage. They are buried in the police blotters way in the back of the paper. Very few deaths are due to "assault rifles" and in for hunting guns, the non-accidental deaths aren't even a blip on the chart. Cheap handguns are what is plaguing the US, not "machine guns".

This is just an assertion.

Culture-wise, we're more like Denmark, but business-wise, we're much more in bed with the Saudis.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I would. That doesn't prove anything. We veiw guns differently. That's the salient difference.

It is one salient difference. There are others.

 

[CFLarsen]

Our cultures are different.

There are many cultures in the US that are different, too. That means nothing?

And in this case it isn't. My argument stands on per capita not raw numbers. Yes we have more guns. We have more people also.

Which part do you have a problem with?

This is just an assertion.

Based on historical/cultural facts, yes.

Come on: There is no way you can argue that SA is just as similar to the US as Denmark is.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I would. That doesn't prove anything. We veiw guns differently. That's the salient difference.

You want it both ways. You want to point to a wide range of different cultural differences, but you also want to point to view on guns as the "salient" difference.

 

[RandFan]

There are many cultures in the US that are different, too. That means nothing?

There are no absolute shared values. There are many cultures. There are shared values. Guns in America is cultural phenomenon and a shared value.

Which part do you have a problem with?

Comparing raw numbers. Per capita we are roughly the same.

Based on historical/cultural facts, yes.

Another assertion.

Come on: There is no way you can argue that SA is just as similar to the US as Denmark is.

No, and I don't need to. America is a dynamic system. The only thing that matters are the differences not the similarities.

 

[CFLarsen]

They are indeed. The cowboy mentality is ingrained into our culture.

In your WASP culture, yes. In other (sub)cultures, you will find different mind-sets.

In my mind, the main problem is that so many of our guns are handguns. Handguns, to quote Lynard Skynard, "are made for killing".

All guns are made for killing. But handguns are far more dangerous, that's true.

Now I realize this has little to do with the school shootings, but in my mind, the whole school shooting thing is just sensationalism. Several people are killed by handguns every day in my city. Dozens nationwide. They don't get press coverage. They are buried in the police blotters way in the back of the paper. Very few deaths are due to "assault rifles" and in for hunting guns, the non-accidental deaths aren't even a blip on the chart. Cheap handguns are what is plaguing the US, not "machine guns".

They don't get press coverage because they have become mundane. It is not big news anymore if someone is shot, it is hardly even news. The school shootings get coverage because it has to do with something perceived as innocent - kids - combined with something perceived as dangerous - guns. Despite of this, it makes no difference in American gun culture. You simply won't let go of them.

Culture-wise, we're more like Denmark, but business-wise, we're much more in bed with the Saudis.

Because of the oil. When you look at business in general, you will find an incredible number of American companies represented here. We do a lot of our business with the US, and they do a lot of business with us.

 

[RandFan]

You want it both ways. You want to point to a wide range of different cultural differences, but you also want to point to view on guns as the "salient" difference.

This is wrong. I only want to note that America is a different dynamic system. Because we are different we can expect different outcomes. America values and wants guns more. Prohibition doesn't work for cultures that want something like alcohol or drugs. The evidence is demonstrable (see America's prohibition and our current drug war).

 

[Katana]

Pure speculation.

As is what you are providing.

I was referring to what countries are comparable. Check the study.

I did. It added nothing to support your claim that removing access to guns will stop school killings.

I told you: We don't see these school shootings elsewhere. You may find a couple, spread over a large number of countries, but we do not see the same number in the same country.

I never said otherwise.

It's your claim. You find the data.

Unlike yourself, I never suggested that what I was stating was anything more than my opinion.

My point, which you seem unable to even entertain, is that the children to commit these crimes are not likely motivated to kill fellow students just because they have access to a gun. Remove the guns, and you are still left with very destructive, easily-made alternatives. If I thought that simply getting rid of all of our guns was the solution, I would support it.

Important: I do not disagree with gun restrictions or strict control. That is not my argument. I just do not believe that guns are the only problem underlying murders in schools by students. The real issue is what is driving these kids to do this? It is an over-simplification to think that just taking away the guns will solve the problem. Sure, you won't have school shootings, but you will have done nothing to address whatever is behind the shootings. Again, I suspect that you will simply have murders through other means.

That merely supports my contention. Not that hard to make, is it? Would even have killed more? Yet, we don't see school bombings. Perhaps it is easier to get guns, even for kids, than it is for them to build a simple bomb?

Why are you repeating what I already said? Guns are likely still more accessible. Take them away, and there are easily-made alternatives.

Wrong. I care about reducing the number of people killed as much as possible.

As do we all. Clearly, we disagree on the means of doing so.

The data proves you wrong.

Your data does not support your contention.

 

[CFLarsen]

There are no absolute shared values. There are many cultures. There are shared values. Guns in America is cultural phenomenon and a shared value.

That's not good enough. You can't just ignore the problems by referring to something as a "cultural phenomenon" and leave it at that.

Comparing raw numbers. Per capita we are roughly the same.

Examples, please.

Another assertion.

Not at all. Read your history, even the current one. Open a newspaper. Watch some TV. Read magazines. Not just American ones, but also non-American ones.

No, and I don't need to. America is a dynamic system. The only thing that matters are the differences not the similarities.

That thinking scares me. By focusing on what separates us instead of what unites us, you are showing that you will not be interested in finding neither answers or solutions. You are stuck in your mindset, and you want to stay that way.

 

[CFLarsen]

As is what you are providing.

Demonstrably false. I provide facts, evidence, data to support my contention.

I did. It added nothing to support your claim that removing access to guns will stop school killings.

OK, you won't see it. Nothing I can do about that.

Unlike yourself, I never suggested that what I was stating was anything more than my opinion.

My point, which you seem unable to even entertain, is that the children to commit these crimes are not likely motivated to kill fellow students just because they have access to a gun. Remove the guns, and you are still left with very destructive, easily-made alternatives. If I thought that simply getting rid of all of our guns was the solution, I would support it.

Important: I do not disagree with gun restrictions or strict control. That is not my argument. I just do not believe that guns are the only problem underlying murders in schools by students. The real issue is what is driving these kids to do this? It is an over-simplification to think that just taking away the guns will solve the problem. Sure, you won't have school shootings, but you will have done nothing to address whatever is behind the shootings. Again, I suspect that you will simply have murders through other means.

I am far less interested in opinion, when I can get evidence.

Why are you repeating what I already said? Guns are likely still more accessible. Take them away, and there are easily-made alternatives.

But not used. This is a fact. While your contention that there will be other means of killing, is only opinion.

As do we all. Clearly, we disagree on the means of doing so.

Despite that you admit that the more guns, the more gun related crime.

Your data does not support your contention.

You are plain wrong.

 

[RandFan]

That's not good enough. You can't just ignore the problems by referring to something as a "cultural phenomenon" and leave it at that.

? I'm not ignoring anything. I'm telling you why you shouldn't make hasty generalizations and I've demonstrated why.

Examples, please.

See your link.

Not at all. Read your history, even the current one. Open a newspaper. Watch some TV. Read magazines. Not just American ones, but also non-American ones.

Not a clue, what's your point?

That thinking scares me. By focusing on what separates us instead of what unites us, you are showing that you will not be interested in finding neither answers or solutions. You are stuck in your mindset, and you want to stay that way.

Sophistry. My only point is that it is wrong to make hasty generalizations by comparing different dynamic systems. Please don't interject into my words that which is not there.

 

[Katana]

Demonstrably false. I provide facts, evidence, data to support my contention.

Depending on what you think your contention is. If your supposed evidence was in response to my disputing your contention that taking away guns will stop school killings, you did not.

OK, you won't see it. Nothing I can do about that.

Oh, well.

I am far less interested in opinion, when I can get evidence.

Your evidence has not supported your opinion.

But not used. This is a fact. While your contention that there will be other means of killing, is only opinion.

They are being made, and they were used in Columbine. The large ones did not detonate, thank goodness, but small pipe bombs were used in the cafeteria.

These are but a few examples of cases where pipe bombs were made by students for the purpose of killing other students. These were minor relative to the scope of Columbine, but to suggest (without evidence) that they aren't being made is wrong.

Milwaukee, 2000

North Carolina, 2004

April, 2005

Despite that you admit that the more guns, the more gun related crime.

Because I have no reason to doubt that. However, take away the guns, and you'll remove gun-related crime, but you won't remove crime.

Take away guns, you'll stop school shootings, but you won't stop students from trying to kill each other until you do something to get at the reasons why they want to.

You are plain wrong.

And I feel the same about you.

ETA: A comment directed at RandFan by CFLarsen:

You are stuck in your mindset, and you want to stay that way.

Perhaps you should consider this possibility in yourself.

 

[The Painter]

CFLarsen, Your worst nightmare;

 

[Polaris]

But bombs aren't a realistic occurence in our civilized world.

You can try change the focus of the discussion or you can address the ideas expressed, your choice.

Or else what, tough guy?

You made a patently false statement that nothing in the everyday world moves as fast as a bullet. I provided something that moves faster than the fastest bullet. And since the focus of the discussion is school shootings, you'd be interested to know that more people have been killed in the US by bombs than children dying in school shootings.

 

[qayak]

Or else what, tough guy?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, He-Man! Relax, no one is challenging your masculinity.

What I mentioned was a choice to carry on a discussion or end it, not an ultimatum.

And please, put your shirt back on. The neighbours are laughing at your sunken chest.

You made a patently false statement that nothing in the everyday world moves as fast as a bullet.

Actually, I don't know that this is the case. It just seemed like a really childish thing to argue with you so I allowed that you maybe correct. However, I can't actually find information on how fast shrapnel moves so if you would like to cite some evidence, I would be interested to know if what I said was really wrong.

But, please! It's not that big a deal. Don't keel over from testosterone overload. Especially when I am not there to point and mock.

 

[qayak]

I don't need to modify what I said because it was in the context of a discussion which you did not consider when you quoted me. I said that removing all access to guns would only increase the number of bombs being used in school as a response to CFL's assertion that removing guns is the solution to school shootings. I did not make the argument that we shouldn't make guns inaccessible to children because they might use bombs instead, which is how you portrayed my statement.

Clear enough?

Well, good. My response to your post stands. That is exactly the meaning I had gotten from your words.

You do not think that removing guns will lower the number of deaths but that the perpetrators will just turn to bombs. I think you are wrong on the first assumption. I think it would reduce the number of deaths and I think that bombs are another issue and will be addressed when it happens. I also think that you are completely wrong. There is no evidence to show that when gun access goes down, bomb building goes up.

Besides, gathering material, building bombs, transporting them to school and setting them off without being detected somewhere along the line, is a lot harder than taking daddy's AK-47 and Glock to school and opening up on people.

 

[Katana]

Well, good. My response to your post stands. That is exactly the meaning I had gotten from your words.

You do not think that removing guns will lower the number of deaths but that the perpetrators will just turn to bombs. I think you are wrong on the first assumption. I think it would reduce the number of deaths and I think that bombs are another issue and will be addressed when it happens. I also think that you are completely wrong. There is no evidence to show that when gun access goes down, bomb building goes up.

Do you feel that the solution to students killing students in schools is simply gun control? Please state your position.

 

[qayak]

Do you feel that the solution to students killing students in schools is simply gun control? Please state your position.

I think it is the first thing that needs to be done and then we will need to see from there. The reason for this, in my view, is that stopping guns from getting into the hands of kids will have the most dramatic effect.

I think that violence is a part of boys make-up after puberty. Once the hormones start raging, it takes several years for things to balance out again. We are different than girls and no amount of trying to make us the same is going to help. I experienced it, I saw it in my friends, I see it in my son and all his friends. There are a few boys that you hardly notice it in and some that the rage consumes them. Most are in the middle.

Some will pick up a stick and smack their little sister or brother, they may or may not regret it, later. With a stick there is little harm done and an apology will usually make it better, but if they pick up a gun and shoot someone in their moment of rage, no matter how much they regret it later, they cannot take it back.

It is like having a vicious dog in the house and you know it is going to bite someone. If the dog is a chihuahua, not much harm done, but if it is a pitbull, that's a different story. A vicious dog is a vicious dog, I agree but the difference in the force these two are capable of exerting makes a huge difference. A chihuahua can nip, a pitbull can tear your arm off. Why turn a chihuahua into a pitbull by giving him a big set of chompers to use?

The only problem I have with guns is that they are final. They kill anybody they target and an apology doesn't make it better. When the hormones are raging and reaction is so completely out of proportion to the cause, they are dangerous to have around. They ruin kids' lives. Not just the kids ho get shot but the ones that pull the trigger too.

I think a lot of things have led us to this point as. I think that not allowing boys to burn off this "energy" in some quazi-violent manner is a big mistake. The whole zero tolerance on violence was a poorly conceived idea. Putting your boys into sports where they can channel the violence is a good idea. Wrestling, judo, karate, ju jitsu, football, rugby, etc, are all about combat and learning to deal with violence in a safe manner. On the other hand, although I think they are great activities, I don't think figure skating or gymnastics, etc. will help with this.

In my view though, keeping guns out of the hands of children is the number one priority.