School Shootings?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by FoundationOfRancor, Mar 13, 2001.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    It'd take a lot of effort.

    First you'd have to narrow down those countries which have relatively freedom of the press so you "know" the news isn't controlled or biased to the majority of extent.

    Then you have to GET the newspapers (and I don't know how many are online, even).

    Then you might need accurate translations if you don't already speak it...

    It might need to be a group effort :) if one was really serious pursuing it.
  2. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    Whoa! 2 to 1...no fair. :)
    Spidey: I disagree with your notion that the banning of guns will not cause a great reduction in gun violence.
    The banning of guns will remove an element to buying guns that is key; convenience. The ordinary citizen probably won't go out of the way to go to a black market and buy a gun. Also, the gun trade won't flourish like the drug trade because drugs are additicive, unlike guns.
    Also, regarding where criminals get their guns, you thought it was the latter, I think it's the former. As their are no clear statistics to prove this, I see it as merely a difference of opinion, in which a debate would be pointless.
    Also, I did actually mean that I understand political and religious (in the Middle East, religion actually ties in a lot with politics, which is why I included it.)reasons for violence, but I don't understand school or domestic reasons for violence. (I'll consider terrorism to be international for the sake of this post even though I know that there is domestic terrorism.)
    And in the final statement, yes. I do not particulary trust the accuracy of the U.S. media, in which the newspaper is apart of.

    To sum Spidey, I simply believe that banning guns is more effective, and I give it more credit than you do.

    Draggertooth. I retract the generalization portion of my comment. However, it is still my opinion that it is overly difficult to logically convince a gun owner why guns are not necessary.
    Your comment on terrorism has no relevence with the quote above it, and therefore I don't know what you are referring to.
    As for defending yourself against criminals, there are many non-lethal and effective methods for defending yourself in your home. A gun is not necessary for security and warrants more trouble than it's worth. Don't you think that the fact that most citizens in most countries around the world not owning guns, and yet not being robbed blind shows something?
    As for the little fact about religious violence, read above.

    (I'm feeling like making a discreet exit, but I wouldn't want Spidey to get in the last word, again. ;p)
  3. Gerode Becoming a Lurker Again

    The ordinary citizen also won't go out killing people. There may be fewer acts of random violence, school shootings for example, but any criminal would get their hands on a gun almost as easily as one can get drugs. And even if guns were banned, there is still going to be the military, which will have guns in great number.
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Multani:
    Like Gerode said, IMHO that's not going to stop the school shootings (which is what this was originally about). Those people were obviously determined, and a determined person will find a gun no matter what.

    It might cause a decrease in accidental shootings by kids finding guns in the homes though. But that's not what we're really tallking about, I don't think.

    There probably are some statistics, as police are VERY curious as to where the gun came from in a crime. I don't know where to find this or whether it's public information though.

    Why don't you understand school or domestic reasons for violence? To me, it's people who don't like the current status quo and/or are mad about something and they use a gun as a solution. Same as political or religious violence.

    Heh, I already knew that. So what media DO you trust? I can tell you there's only a couple of places in the world that have freedom of the press.

    And I'm curious, why DON'T you trust the US media? I admit that certain newspapers may be "biased" as to the news they might report, but in the US as a whole, you can always find another newspaper, let alone another media-type, that will present the other side. Where else can you find that that's not in those "couple of places" above?

    Oh yeah, where's this "fact" about people in other countries not owning guns and not getting robbed blind? Just curious since you said "fact"... :)
  5. Daggertooth The Rune Master

    You were saying that you could understand Political and Religious violence, but not terrorism. I was mearly stating that Terrorism is a form of Political violence.

    What methods are you referring too? Just letting the robbery take place then try to catch them later? As for guns being more trouble than their worth. Most gun owners are responsible and know gun safety. Not to mention a presence of a gun often leads to the owner feeling psychologically safe if not really safe.


    There are many laws to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Most guns are labled and can easily be tracked. Also, the government knows who owns a gun and who doesn't. (at least those purchased after regular screening took place) To get a gun from a gun shop you have to get a background check. So no, it is not easy to get a gun the legal way for criminals.

    As for newspapers. Everywhere you go you'll find bias. In fact most the News I've seen in America are Democratically biased. You just gota look up more than one source.

    Daggertooth
  6. Riva Iron-Grip da Kandy Man

    now, to prove my point, and make sure that my post is read, i'm going to type in caps.

    BANNING GUNS: IF WE WERE TO BAN GUNS, IF "might" HELP IN REDUCING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, BUT COME ON. THAT'S NOT THE REASON THAT WE WANT TO BAN GUNS. THERE HAVE BEEN LIKE 15 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN THE PAST 7 YEARS. IF WE BAN GUNS, WE ALLOW THE "LAW" TO POSSESS THEM, BUT NOT THE PUBLIC. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN THE CONSTITUTION IT SAYS THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS. AND I SURE AS HELL WILL BARE ARMS IF I CHOOSE. BUT I do THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY THAT YOU TAKE A GUN CLASS BEFORE YOU CAN ACTUALLY POSSESS A GUN IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD. I ALSO THINK THAT ALLOWING ONLY THE LAW TO POSSESS GUNS WILL BE TOTALLY OBTRUSE. MOST POLICE THAT I KNOW, ARE THE MOST EVIL CORRUPT PEOPLE THAT COULD LIVE. THE ONLY BECAME POLICE TO BE the LAW. MY BROTHER WANTS TO BE A COP SO THAT HE CAN BULLY, AND CONTROL PEOPLE. WE WOULD THEN BE CONTROLLED WITH REVOLUTIONS AND SUCH.

    SECURITY: NOT REALLY A GOOD THING. THAT GIVES EVEN MORE PRESSURE ON THE STUDENTS AT SCHOOL. CAUSING THEM TO LASH OUT EVEN FURTHER. WHEN YOU SUPRESS A CHILD THROUGH LIFE THEY REVOLT WHEN THEY HAVE THE CHANCE. SO SECURITY, AND SPYING IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY, AND IS REALLY A PROBLEM.

    i'm sure that you do not believe in what i'm talking about, but these are my views. so sue me
  7. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Guns are machines designed to kill or at least incapacitate things. No matter how you slice it, it can not be denied that this is their function.

    As such, I oppose them whole-heartedly.

    Obviously, this alone will not convince most people to lay down their guns, as almost every society in the world is sending subtle messages that they shouldn't, and my idea is not a belief held by the majority of those in this country.

    There are many other factors that can affect whether someone with less radical ideas than mine would or would not buy a gun, such as "defensive" capabilities. However, none of this would ever affect me.

    I hope that the following does not offend anyone, but I wish to say something that might be misinterpreted easily, possibly to devastating effect. Let's say Jim owns a gun, but he doesn't intend to shoot anyone with it or use it for any malevolent purpose, and in fact he does not for all of his life. He keeps it locked safely away from his children, and usually has the safety on. In short, he is a responsible gun owner. Why, then, could Jim possibly want the gun? The only reasons that even seem to make sense on the surface are as self-defense, and for hunting. The second is a more complicated issue, so I'll get into that a little later. Hunting is, at best, pointless in this day and age. The animals killed yield nothing, except some meat that could be had more easily if that person went down to the corner store (sans hunting gear) and bought beef, and bragging rights among hunting afficionados.

    The issue of guns used as self-defense has always been controversial. Whether or not it is ethical is an issue which is already being debated well enough by the rest of you here, and I would add little to that discussion (unless someone were feebly trying to make a "definitive" majority rules decision). It will of course come as no surprise to you that I oppose guns as self-defense from other people with guns. This is because I don't applaud it as a truly good thing if you are able to kill someone before they try to kill you, despite any malicious intent on the behalf of the dead. Obviously some of you will disagree, and I'm not going to run some constant hippie self-loathing tree-hugging $#ite (sarcasm, of course ;)) by you to get you to change your mind; I will use my reasoning, and that alone.

    However, it can not be said by any (I'm not accusing anyone of saying so) that it is a good thing that so many "law-abiding citizens" (it's a cliché now) in this society feel so afraid that they should have to buy a gun in defense. I will admit that the example Daggertooth gave of a jewelry store (right?) is one thing, but a society would have to be rather screwed up for someone living in a suburban neighborhood with green grass, yellow school buses and a low crime rate to realistically fear for the safety of his/her children daily, or enough to buy a gun.

    I am not necessarily chiding gun owners; they are not sociopathic maniacs; and yet in my mind some of them don't quite have their priorities straight (note the use of the word "some").

    As an aside, not really meant to further my point: Daggertooth: Earlier you said that we can't expect police to stand on every street corner, signifying that you doubt (at least somewhat) the power of the cops; then you said that there were laws against guns getting in the wrong hands (or something like that), which would imply that you thought the law had power in those affairs. What exactly is your personal stance on the police in terms of gun use?
  8. Gerode Becoming a Lurker Again

    Hunting can be viewed as a hobby, not too different from hiking or camping, or even sports and Magic. Hunting isn't any worse than raising cattle; at least the animal lives naturally and does have a chance to survive, instead of being destined to the slaughterhouse as soon as they are born. And big game can provide several months worth of meat.
  9. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    I really regret the fact that this isn't a political corner....
    Maybe I could convince FoR to host a corner of his own...:)
    Anyway...on to the rebuttals....

    Spidey: I'll give you the point that determined can probably get a gun...but how many of the students involved in the school shootings were truly determined? Would they really have gone to a black market if there was no gun available at stores or at home?

    Dido.

    Draggertooth:

    Ever heard of mace? Anyway, in most robberies, the criminal is usually caught after the crime happens. There have been very few cases in which the store manager actually shot the criminal in the act. These occurences are rare.

    On a final note about the U.S. Media: Personally, I don't trust the U.S. Media because it has said some things that I know for a fact are not true. Also as far as international issues go (which is where I'm interested.), most media sources are one-sided, and those that show the otherside, aren't very recongized. Going to different sources in this case usually doesn't warrant a different side of the story.

    Overall, I'd say that the banning of guns will not create as null or as negative an impact as most people think. Hey, if the European nations don't allow civilians to own guns, and their not toppling from violence, they must be doing something right......
  10. Daggertooth The Rune Master

    First of all I would like to reiterate my opinion about banning guns. It wont work.

    Banning guns is Like Genetically engineering Plants to live in polluted areas. Sure The plant population increases. And possibly city beautification can take place. But the pollution Problem wasn't even confronted. Likewise, the banning of guns might decrease the number of School shootings, but the anger, rage, and willingness to kill is still there. Have you heard of the Jolly Rogers Cook Book? (I bet Riva has a few coppies. :)) Well, it is very effective and a deadlier (IMHO) device than guns. In the end banning guns solve nothing but enrage those who are responsible with guns.


    Riva!! I'll sue :) (Please don't use do all caps. It's harder to read and hurts my eyes.)

    Like I said Before, Education is the best answer. Hunters safety is a required course(I think). you need it to get some blue card. (You can tell I don't hunt :)) I actually have this. It was required for the rifle shooting merit badge.

    Guns are also used for recreation. Who can hit the target better than others. It's fun, If used safely.


    I must address this. Hunting is a great way to sustain wildlife where predators have been wiped out, and to obtain good food. This is where you kill your animal, Skin it, know exactly how it was taken care of, and eat the spoils of the hunt for weeks. This is much better than "beef."

    Artificial injections of hormones as well as Genetic Engineering has made an impact on our meat produce. Many people are unaware of all these changes, and quite frankly long term effects are widely unknown. Some would prefer a more "natural" meal than some animal science "played" with.


    About the police. I trust that the hefty fines provoke law abiding gun shops. After all, Money talks and being caught could cost lots of money. Computer records also help. As for police, in most cases there are only enough to patrol a few major roads and respond to calls.


    Finally, Multani.

    Mace Vs Gun, Hmmmm who would win. Yes, I've heard of mace, but I wouldn't put my money on it.

    Those few cases of managers shooting criminals do happen, sending a strong message to both gun owner and would be criminals.

    The message: "Guns work and those who have them can resist."

    Yes the chances that you will be robbed by gunpoint is very slim, But it does make a person feel more secure at home.


    Daggertooth
    P.S. I'll try to get the Cook Book if anyones interested, I haven't read much, but it is interesting reading. It kinda makes you worried. After all, any deluded psychopath with internet connections can get it.
  11. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    Education won't help very much if you're not planning to use the safety devices. How hard is the idea of 'get rid of the weapon, stop the deaths' to grasp? Wouldn't you say that it's logical that the banning of guns will drive down (not eliminate) the crime rate, and other gun-related deaths?

    Most people around the world are not sensible enough that education becomes a deterrent. As for the hunting issue, you could just rent guns at the hunting grounds, and kill all the game you want.
    As for mace, the key is the element of surprise. Also, stunners work well if you can get close enough. In these days, it's not the power of the weapon that matters, but who can fire and hit first without being hit in return.

    Like TICM said, guns are designed to kill, and I certainly can't see why Americans so embrace the concept of being able to kill others with a gun....

    There are already many safeties on guns. Is the death-rate for guns down? No.
    Eduacation takes to long to be effective. Banning guns is an exellent stop-gap measure, that would take effect almost immediately.
    Sure it violates part of the 1st amendment, but that amendment was made in the days when there were no alarm systems, or police.
    America has changed, and I believe that the repeal of the gun portion of the 1st amendment, is long overdue....

    My opinion is not popular, but I've learned that popular opinion is not always right...
  12. Dementia CPA's Chair Wielding Maniac

    First off banning guns wouldn't stop violent people from doing violent things.Even if they couldn't get any guns(which they could) ever heard of knives. Someone could kill thier classmates with knives. BAN KNIVES!!!

    Second off even if guns were banned they wouldn't stay banned. Remember what happened with beer. Guns may not be as addictive as beer but they have come to be a symbol of freedom in America. If you take them away A LOT of people will feel as though thier very freedom was taken away. In short; it's not just about guns anymore it's about freedom.

    You are much to idealistic Multani, and put to much faith in some things and not enough in others.

    You have to little of faith in the fact that you seem to think people are all good people but when they get a gun they turn into murderers. People are not that fickle guns don't turn them into murderers they either are or they aren't.

    And you have to much faith in the fact that you say police do thier jobs flawlessly and that banning guns will stop VIOLENT PEOPLE FROM DOING VIOLENT THINGS.

    Anyways, reply back Multani I make a lot better points when I'm actually asked questions instead of just jumping into the middle of a conversation.
  13. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    ...but naive, I'm not. I understand that if guns were banned, there would be many Americans out there that would feel their freedom has been limited...but you know what? Somebody has to draw the line sometime. Absolute freedom is an illusion, and if you believe in it, then it is you that are naive.
    Also, knives don't nearly kill as much people as knives. Also, knives aren't guaranteed to kill, neither are guns, but they have a higher probability of killing.
    Look Dementia, I know that there will always be acts of violence, and there will always be murderers.
    And I'm not saying that owning a gun makes you a murderer. But what would you have facing you? A murderer with a gun, or a murderer with a knife?

    Okay, since you people aren't obviously getting, let me put it in bold.
    Banning guns is not a cureall, but it WILL decrease gun deaths, which is the whole point here. I know determined criminals will always have guns, and there will always be gun deaths. But keep in mind people, the goal is DECREASE, not ELIMINATE....
  14. Dementia CPA's Chair Wielding Maniac

    Basically what I am saying is your solution is wrong not because it's a bad idea or because your wrong but because it will NEVER happen so it is as good/bad as the solution "kill em all and let god sort em out"

    If a solution is impossible well than it's time to come up with some new ones don't you agree?

    In cause your wondering Mult I don't personally like guns ,but your solution is idealistic and unattainable so it is in fact not a solution at all.
  15. Gerode Becoming a Lurker Again

    What percentage of gun deaths are accidental or "random" as compared to shootings with some motive?
  16. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    Dementia:
    My solution may not be as unattainable, as it seems. All it takes, is for America to see the true harm that guns do. There is only a thin veil of misperception, propaganda, and ignorance that keeps Americans from rearing up, and kicking the NRA sky high, and banning guns.
    As long as people think something is impossible and unattainable, it will stay impossible, and unattainable.....
  17. Dementia CPA's Chair Wielding Maniac

    I'm not a scenic, I know I'm not cause I used to be :)

    You're putting to much faith in people again Mult.

    Most people don't care about much. They care about getting through the day at work and getting home and relaxing and watch the game.

    They see things on the news and THINK that's horrible someone should do something about that, but they're tired they just had a hard day of work and no matter WHAT it is you can't really get the majority to care.

    That's the first flaw in your plan. The second is that there's a BIG group of people in this country that LOVE guns. They seem to be VERY devoted to keeping thier guns.
  18. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    As worried as most people are about guns, they're more worried about the government, and rightly so.
    As long as they perceive guns as a viable defense, people will not give up their guns.
    And since our senators and congresspeople stay in office only if they do what the masses want...
  19. Gerode Becoming a Lurker Again

    Dementia:

    There are a lot of people who don't care about each other issue, but many issues still get pushed and legislated. All it takes to change things is some very vocal people.

    Banning guns may be an implausible solution at the moment, but unfortunately it could be a possibility down the road many years. I wouldn't dismiss the issue by simply saying it won't happen; that's been said about many other issues throughout history. All it takes is time.
  20. Daggertooth The Rune Master

    Okay, Your right here to a point. Banning guns will significantly reduce gun related crime. But it will increase non-gun related crime. So the violence doesn't stop. It is just rearranged. It is the violent tendencies that we need to target.

    I disagree. Education will help stem the growth of accidental shooting. And since one of the factors of school shootings is poor coping skills (FBI threat assessment). An anger management class will lower the violence to a point.

    Again I disagree. Guns have a longer range than all others you have described. But, If you are able to somehow hit the criminal with mace the can still fire off a few shots.

    Again this is just your speculation. wheres your statistics? I have read that.


    Now I would rather have a knife against me than a gun. However, when I said non-gun violence I don't mean guns. I'm talking about stuff that would scare me more than guns. Instructions in the Jolly Rogers Cookbook and other anarchy material teach a person how to Commit mass destruction. With the banning of guns I fear that these techniques will be further explored by the disgruntled student.




    hereare some statistics I found that you might find interesting.


    Daggertooth

Share This Page