School Shootings?

[Spiderman]

Lots of replies all of a sudden... it used to be just Multani, Daggertooth, and myself..

Riva: So are you saying you're ready to go out and serve in the military when they "call" you up or need it? Because that's really why the "right to bear arms" amendment is in there...

TICM: Another "reasonable" reason behind why you might have a gun is for collecting purposes.

Don't know who said that blurb about hunting being not necessary, but going along with what Daggertooth said, it is being recognized that hunting is a more "viable" way to curb deer herds, as contraceptives and whatever other solutions are out there are "worse" in effectiveness.

(saved the best for last )

Multani: What's "dido"? Ditto?

Regarding international news: What is "media"? And how many sources are you looking at? I will maintain that it is easier in the US than almost any other place to find a dissenting view that is more "public" in accessability.

Regarding decrease of deaths if guns are banned: I am 85% certain that automobiles cause MANY more deaths than guns AND have less of a reason behind them. Following your reasoning, should you not work towards banning them first?

 

[Multani]

Spidey: You know full-well that's not what I mean, and I think you're nitpicking again.

Draggertooth: Regarding Mace, we're talking about a store here. What range do you need? And even if the criminal did get a few shots off, he would probably not harm anyone, and it would disable him.
As for your comment on speculation, I mentioned that to Spidey. Your comment is also speculation. As for your CNN source, just because the number of people bringing guns to school has gone down, doesn't mean that the number people dying from guns at school have....

Also, regarding a knife; you could probably kill 1 maybe 2 people at most. Now a gun can kill probably at least 10, and if your competent, 20. You do the math.
As for the banning of guns driving up, the rate of non-gun related crime, maybe. But, keep in mind, even if those rates do inch up a bit, the number of deaths will still be drastically reduced....

People, read my bolded message in my previous posts. Any other rebuttals involving the fact that banning guns will not end all violence will not be honored with a reply. I'm not that naive to think banning guns is a cureall for violence.

 

[Daggertooth]

Originally posted by Multani
Draggertooth: Regarding Mace, we're talking about a store here. What range do you need? And even if the criminal did get a few shots off, he would probably not harm anyone, and it would disable him.

I disagree, any discharge from a gun could be fatal. It's not worth the chance with just mace. But a gun not only equals the battlefield. It shows that you are willing to fight. possibly scaring the criminal away. It does work better.

As for your comment on speculation, I mentioned that to Spidey. Your comment is also speculation. As for your CNN source, just because the number of people bringing guns to school has gone down, doesn't mean that the number people dying from guns at school have....

I must admit that I'm still looking for those statistics. However I wasn't speculating, mearly pointing out a quote I read.

As for the banning of guns driving up, the rate of non-gun related crime, maybe. But, keep in mind, even if those rates do inch up a bit, the number of deaths will still be drastically reduced....

No, They will not. Knives are not the only thing that will increase in schools. A violent student with a death wish is just as likely to make a bomb. More so without the access of guns. You cover up the real problem (Emotionally troubled teens unable to cope with society) You stop nothing. I don't know if your aware of it but bomb making material is very easy to obtain and bombs relatively easy to make. For an example, Napalm = Diesel Fuel and Styrofoam. Some kids were actually testing that stuff out a block away from my old school. Like I said before, Anyone with an internet connection can make a bomb. You may displace the violence and praise yourself for the gun deaths decrease. But don't expect overall school deaths to decrease.

People, read my bolded message in my previous posts. Any other rebuttals involving the fact that banning guns will not end all violence will not be honored with a reply. I'm not that naive to think banning guns is a cureall for violence.

But you are "naive" enough to think that the death rate will be "Drastically reduced."



Daggertooth
I'll try to find those statistics when I have time

 

[Multani]

Originally posted by Daggertooth

I disagree, any discharge from a gun could be fatal. It's not worth the chance with just mace. But a gun not only equals the battlefield. It shows that you are willing to fight. possibly scaring the criminal away. It does work better.

Is it just me, or do you seem absolutely incorrigible in your notion that guns are the only defense against criminals? I know a discharge from a gun is fatal, but the problem is, will that discharge hit a person, if the shooter is blind? Maybe you should create an experiment... Following your second example, what if it doesn't scare the criminal away? What if that criminal is a better shot than you are? As I see it, owning a gun doesn't make you invincible....

Originally posted by Daggertooth

No, They will not. Knives are not the only thing that will increase in schools. A violent student with a death wish is just as likely to make a bomb. More so without the access of guns. You cover up the real problem (Emotionally troubled teens unable to cope with society) You stop nothing. I don't know if your aware of it but bomb making material is very easy to obtain and bombs relatively easy to make. For an example, Napalm = Diesel Fuel and Styrofoam. Some kids were actually testing that stuff out a block away from my old school. Like I said before, Anyone with an internet connection can make bomb. You may displace the violence and praise yourself for the gun deaths decrease. But don't expect overall school deaths to decrease.

If you knew the first thing about building bombs, than you should know that the key to building a powerful bomb is not in finding a powerful and potent explosive medium. Second, even if guns weren't banned, the bombs could go off just as easily. There is no direct correlation between building bombs, and gun deaths. Truly, if bombs were so easy to build a bomb, no one would bother with guns. After all, with bombs, the bomber has a much lower profile and a well-built bomb has the potential to kill many more people than a gun. Also, most students do not build effective bombs. On the news, you hear that bombs only usually injure people, and at most kill perhaps 2 students. That's about as many a knife might kill.

Originally posted by Daggertooth

But you are "naive" enough to think that the death rate will be "Drastically reduced."

Up until, no one has directly insulted anyone in this discussion. Calling me "naive" gives me a peek at your maturity level. Anyway, I could just as easily say you are naive to believe that gun deaths won't go down from the banning og guns. Throughout this entire discussion, I have noticed that you have continued to back up guns no matter how seemingly illogical your reasons were. It leads me to believe that you are "not convincible". After all, there are many "close-minded" people in this world. I might be one, but I like to think that I am capable of accepting the fact that my opinon may be wrong as well....

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Why would responsible gun-users become "enraged" if guns were banned? Do they really depend upon death-on-a-stick (call me crude, but that's what guns are) so much that they would have little tantrums if guns were banned? If so, why? I maintain that guns are totally unnecessary in this day and age. What could possibly compel someone to collect guns other than maybe a totally twisted notion of what is a "collector's item," and what could bring on this thought? Hunting is also unnecessary - either eat meat, because it's easier to get, or be truly "natural" (if that is really your concern) and become a vegetarian, something which I doubt most gun supporters would do (especially those who would defend hunting).

My point is that this society has horrible problems with its value system, if it values guns so highly (much less at all). The banning of guns will not fix this by itself; I am aware of this, and I am certain that Multani is as well. However, it would be a step in the right direction, and should not be merely dismissed as "naive" and therefore totally ignored.

 

[Daggertooth]

Is it just me, or do you seem absolutely incorrigible in your notion that guns are the only defense against criminals? I know a discharge from a gun is fatal, but the problem is, will that discharge hit a person, if the shooter is blind? Maybe you should create an experiment... Following your second example, what if it doesn't scare the criminal away? What if that criminal is a better shot than you are? As I see it, owning a gun doesn't make you invincible....

I've never once stated that Guns are the only defense against criminals. All I've been saying is that guns are the most effective tool in defense. Sure we can make nit picky examples of where that is not true, but there are plenty of times that it is. Yes owning a gun does not make you invincible, but it makes you a lot more psychologically confidant when the time comes to defend yourself.

If you knew the first thing about building bombs, than you should know that the key to building a powerful bomb is not in finding a powerful and potent explosive medium. Second, even if guns weren't banned, the bombs could go off just as easily. There is no direct correlation between building bombs, and gun deaths. Truly, if bombs were so easy to build a bomb, no one would bother with guns. After all, with bombs, the bomber has a much lower profile and a well-built bomb has the potential to kill many more people than a gun. Also, most students do not build effective bombs. On the news, you hear that bombs only usually injure people, and at most kill perhaps 2 students. That's about as many a knife might kill.

My argument is that with the banning of guns the violence will just shift. Not end. The Building of bombs is just an example of this displacement. Not what will happen. However, you must admit that a few well put explosive can catch the eye of the media just as much, if not more (depending on the severity) then guns. And a well placed bomb can be devastating in a large crowd. you must remember that the majority of these students are above average inelegance and are quite capable of mass destruction.

I could just as easily say you are naive to believe that gun deaths won't go down from the banning of guns.

Yes you could say that, if I ever believed that gun deaths would not go down. However, throughout this discussion I have maintained that it will go down. But banning guns does not even touch the real problem. The violent tendency of students. It just moves the violence to other mediums. If there is a reduction in death it would not be Dramatic.

Throughout this entire discussion, I have noticed that you have continued to back up guns no matter how seemingly illogical your reasons were. It leads me to believe that you are "not convincible". After all, there are many "close-minded" people in this world. I might be one, but I like to think that I am capable of accepting the fact that my opinion may be wrong as well....

Obviously you haven't been paying much attention to the discussion. I have been attacking your reasons for banning guns. After all, banning guns have little to do with confronting the issue of violence. I can be convinced with statistics, in fact I have been looking for them. Also, I do try to avoid being Close-minded.

"Up until, no one has directly insulted anyone in this discussion. Calling me "naive" gives me a peek at your maturity level.

Now perhaps "Naive" was a poor choice of words, but it was in no way intentioned as an insult. I was just using Your use of it in your quote, "I'm not that naive," to tie in with what I was saying, "But you are "naive" enough." Besides, I do maintain that the number of deaths, if guns were banned, will not be "drastically reduced." To me that's a small step above a cureall for violence.

So again, I want to make it perfectly clear to you that I in no way meant to insult you. I am sorry you took it that way and I will be more careful with my choice of diction in the future.



Thallid

Ever hear of the NRA. They got all rialed up just because congress was threatening to make some restrictive laws. They would riot if congress tied to ban guns.

Hunting is also unnecessary - either eat meat, because it's easier to get, or be truly "natural" and become a vegetarian, something which I doubt most gun supporters would do.

First of all the fish and wildlife management would die if either Guns were banned, or hunting is banned. This organization is vital for maintaining the wildlife of America. It also gets its primary source of funding from hunting licenses.

The media has an unfair depiction of the actual hunter. Many of them, and all the ones I know, work hard in gun safety and educating others. They also implement the "better than you found it" policy to keep our wildlife clean.
Second, The only really natural food you can get it in the wilderness. You want meat that science didn't "play" with then your best source is hunting.

And what does being a vegetarian have to do with eating "natural" Genetically Engineered food is primarily in vegetables. And since farmers aren't required to say what Frankenplants they use, you are never insured a "natural" meal. I'll take my Thistle and Deer if I ever want to eat natural.

*I am completely on the side of GE Foods and the other benefits GE can provide*

Daggertooth

 

[Spiderman]

I thought this topic was near-death when there weren't any replies from Monday to Tuesday...

Multani:

Spidey: You know full-well that's not what I mean, and I think you're nitpicking again.

Frankly, no, it's not nitpicking. My point is that there are more things out there that is causing youth deaths than gun violence, and maybe we should work on them first (if not in conjuction). I'm more concerned about car deaths and the "easy availability" of them and the fact the public is more desensitized to that issue that they can accept it rather than the high-profile yet fewer death-causing issue of guns.

As for your CNN source, just because the number of people bringing guns to school has gone down, doesn't mean that the number people dying from guns at school have....

Actually, the Surgeon General has a report out that confirms this, as the result of a study undertaken after the Columbine shootings. I've been trying to find it but have been unable to, but the Monday Baltimore Sun mentions it and another paper from the West Coast, which I can't remember at this time.

Also, regarding a knife; you could probably kill 1 maybe 2 people at most. Now a gun can kill probably at least 10, and if your competent, 20. You do the math.

Could probably. But in reality, they just kill one or few. Columbine, with its 13 person death toll, was a "massacre" but seems to have been an aberration with the exceptionally high death toll.

As for the banning of guns driving up, the rate of non-gun related crime, maybe. But, keep in mind, even if those rates do inch up a bit, the number of deaths will still be drastically reduced....

Drastically? How did you arrive at this statement?

TICM: Kinda like how collecting pieces of cardboard is rather insane? To the point of counterfeiting?

People collect things of all kinds. Stamps, baseball cards, road maps, shot glasses, whatever. Just because YOU don't think it's a "proper" item to collect, does that necessitate you calling it "absurb" or "ridiculous" (or whatever you called it, I didn't remember to quote you)?

 

[Multani]

Hmm...I wonder when this issue will end...I feel like all our arguments are going in circles....
Anyway...
Daggertooth:

Originally posted by Daggertooth

I've never once stated that Guns are the only defense against criminals. All I've been saying is that guns are the most effective tool in defense. Sure we can make nit picky examples of where that is not true, but there are plenty of times that it is. Yes owning a gun does not make you invincible, but it makes you a lot more psychologically confidant when the time comes to defend yourself.

Guns may be effective, but they are also fatal. I thought this society disliked death...oh wait, wrong country. I forgot this is America. Anyway, the kind of confidence you speak of will get you killed. I think we can all name instances in which the would-be hero of a robbery(or some other crime.) was killed thinking he could single-handedly take out all the criminals just because he had a gun.

Originally posted by Daggertooth

My argument is that with the banning of guns the violence will just shift. Not end. The Building of bombs is just an example of this displacement. Not what will happen. However, you must admit that a few well put explosive can catch the eye of the media just as much, if not more (depending on the severity) then guns. And a well placed bomb can be devastating in a large crowd. you must remember that the majority of these students are above average inelegance and are quite capable of mass destruction.

Give me the percentage of school bombs in the United States that have killed more than 15 people, and I'll give you the point.

Originally posted by Daggertooth

Yes you could say that, if I ever believed that gun deaths would not go down. However, throughout this discussion I have maintained that it will go down. But banning guns does not even touch the real problem. The violent tendency of students. It just moves the violence to other mediums. If there is a reduction in death it would not be Dramatic.

You're right about the fact that banning guns will not decrease violent tendencies. However, the point of banning guns is to ban the medium. The reason being that guns seem to be an especially dangerous and deadly medium. Once that medium (guns) is banned, than, and only then, will educational programs begin to become even half as efficent as it's sponsors claim it is....

Spidey:

Originally posted by Spiderman

I'm more concerned about car deaths and the "easy availability" of them and the fact the public is more desensitized to that issue that they can accept it rather than the high-profile yet fewer death-causing issue of guns.

I'm well aware of this fact. I'll use your example about automobile accidents. Trust me, there are many people working on car safety. Unfortunately, the problem is more technological, as compared to the gun issue, which is more legislative. Also, things like drugs, inhalents, STD's but those are already mostly illegal, and there is relatively little legislation can do.

Originally posted by Spiderman

Drastically? How did you arrive at this statement?

Throughout this entire discussion, there has been the difference of opinion whether the banning of guns will reduce deaths drastically, or marginally. This ties in with Daggertooth's comment. Since this is a difference of opinion, there is little I can do to convince you. However, I ask that you consider the POSSIBILITY that banning guns might decrease deaths dramtically, even if only for a temporary amount of time.

 

[Daggertooth]

by multani
Guns may be effective, but they are also fatal. I thought this society disliked death...oh wait, wrong country. I forgot this is America. Anyway, the kind of confidence you speak of will get you killed. I think we can all name instances in which the would-be hero of a robbery(or some other crime.) was killed thinking he could single-handedly take out all the criminals just because he had a gun.

True, But we can also name instances in which the would-be hero was successful. I don't know what the win-lose ratio is, but it doesn't really mater since these cases are rare.

by Multani
Give me the percentage of school bombs in the United States that have killed more than 15 people, and I'll give you the point.

I'll give you something better. The data on the school shootings since 1996 till December of 1999.

from CNN
A history of school violence

December 6, 1999:
Fort Gibson Middle School, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma
4 injured by 13-year-old gunman

November 19, 1999:
Deming Middle School, Deming, New Mexico
1 killed by 13-year-old gunman

May 20, 1999:
Heritage High School, Conyers, Georgia:
6 students injured by 15-year-old gunman

April 20, 1999:
Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado:
15 dead, including 2 18-year-old gunmen, 24 wounded

June 15, 1998:
Armstrong High School, Richmond, Virginia
2 teachers wounded by 14-year-old shooter

May 21 1998:
Thurston High School, Springfield, Oregon
Expelled student kills 2 students, injures 20 a day after he murdered his
parents

May 19, 1998:
Fayetteville, Tennessee
1 student shot another to death in a dispute over a girl

April 24, 1998:
Parker Middle School, Edinboro, Pennsylvania
Teacher killed, 3 wounded by 14-year-old shooter at graduation dance

March 24, 1998:
Westside Middle School, Jonesboro, Arkansas
4 students and a teacher killed, 10 wounded by two students, aged 11
and 13, both convicted of murder and juvenile court and could be held
until they are 21 years old

December 1, 1997:
Heath High School, Paducah, Kentucky
14 year-old freshman kills 3 students, wounds 5 at informal prayer
meeting; shooter serving life sentence in prison

October 1, 1997:
Pearl High School, Pearl, Mississippi
16-year-old junior kills 2 classmates, including his ex-girlfriend, and
wounds 6 after killing his mother; two other students accused of being
accessories; shooter sentenced to life in prison

February 19, 1997
Bethel High School, Bethel, Alaska
16-year-old student kills principal and 1 student, 2 students wounded;
two other students later accused of knowing about the shootings before
they took place; shooter sentenced to 2 99-year terms in prison

February 2, 1996:
Moses Lake High School Moses Lake, Washington
Teacher and 2 students killed, 1 student wounded by 14-year-old shooter
in a trench coat

*I like trench coats, and now I can't use mine because someone will think I'm gonna kill someone. I wish these kids used something else. Like Bunny slippers or something.*

by Multani
You're right about the fact that banning guns will not decrease violent tendencies. However, the point of banning guns is to ban the medium. The reason being that guns seem to be an especially dangerous and deadly medium. Once that medium (guns) is banned, than, and only then, will educational programs begin to become even half as efficient as it's sponsors claim it is....

Yes, It will take this medium out of the schools. And perhaps we will see a reduction in mass school deaths. But as the statistics I have just provided show, it is an aberration to have more than 2 die. The same number that could die from a knife or bomb or any other medium a student gets a hold of. Like I said before, the problem wouldn't be solved and a different deadly medium will be obtained.


Daggertooth

 

[Istanbul]

Originally posted by Riva Iron-Grip
now, to prove my point, and make sure that my post is read, i'm going to type in caps.

I can't tell you how loathsomely irritating...and ineffective...that is.

 

[Spiderman]

It's true, we're pretty much at the point of going around in circles.

I am always open to the possibility of considering that banning guns will DRASTICALLY reduce gun deaths, but hard data will help my decision-making process more. I'm assuming your opinion was influenced in SOME way through news or facts/studies of some sort; I'd just like to see/hear them. Otherwise, it's a flawed opinion (you can still have it though, it just doesn't carry much weight )

Daggertooth: I think Multani asked for statistics on school BOMBINGS, not shootings. But good statistics anyway; it helps back up my point in my earlier post.

What would be nice is to see TOTAL school deaths and then a breakdown of their causes. I wonder if that can be found...

 

[Gizmo]

"In America, where people are allowed to own guns, 15,000 die each year in shootings.
In England, where they don`t have guns, 14 people die through handgun injuries.
Let`s look at that again, cos I realise that theses statistics take a little analysis. USA - 15,000 deaths through handguns. UK - 14.

BUT there`s NO connection - there have been studies done. The governments looked it into, they set up a commission who looked at it, and they reported back that there was NO connection between owning a gun, and actually shooting somebody with a gun. There is NO connection, and you`d be a fool and a communist to make one."
- Bill Hicks

[rant]
If you seriously believe any of that 'guns don`t kill people' BS then you deserve everything you get. The whole Gun lobby thing is protecting one of the most ancient, and thus outmoded, laws in the US constitution. The right to bear arms came directly out of the War Of Independence and basically said 'everyboady can have a gun because we need to be able to raise a militia fast when the British come back in ten years time'. That law, made obsolete when America developed a standing army, is now kept on so people can feel ultra-macho and patriotic in a right-wing moron kind of way (there is no other kind of right-winger, btw) and shoot black people.

All the school shootings appear to occur when Little Timmy the goth/nerd gets picked on and goes to get his daddy`s gun. If his daddy didn`t have a gun in the house whats he gonna do? Get a baseball bat and bludgeon eight people to death? He`s a nerd - he can`t bludgeon anything! If he could he`d be a jock, be getting laid every week, thus be generally much more relaxed, and wouldn`t feel like blowing people away so often!
[/rant]

That said. The whole bomb thing is just messed up. If kids are going to go around and get the expertise, equipment, and time to build a place a bomb then something got screwed up a long time ago that nobody spotted this was going off, like counsellors or somebody should have stepped in eons ago. But I kind of got the impression that bombings were WAY more rare than shootings.

Knives - you got a knife you can hurt somebody. But you`re not going to kill 8 guys because it`s not easy to kill somebody with a knife if the EMTs are going to get there any time that year. People can run from knives, people can fight back (bady) from knives.

So you get rid of guns, people have got to be either totally off the edge in a long-term planning kind of way, they can`t just have a couple of bad days in school and have their hormones take over and shoot the place up. Bombs take time and effort - you`ve got to have gone postal to bomb a school. And knives are way lress dangerous. Trust me - 99% of people who go long and decide to shoot people would NOT have got a knife because it is a far more personal act, far less dramatic (a sense of going out in style is inherent in the psychology of school shootings I think), and far less likely to succeed. Even if they did use a knife the chances of them killing somebody are very slim.

I think that if you get rid of guns from the society, you`re going a log way to reducing school deaths, especially in areas where the shootings are not related to any inner-city gang activity. A lot of these shooting seem to be taking place in nice middle-class white schools, where the pressure on kids to succeed and conform is strongest, and those are precisely the areas where banning guns would have the greatest impact.

How anybody can possibly argue that increasing the number of lethal weapons in circulation would reduce the number of deaths by lethal weapon is beyond me. All that anti-crime nonsense is just nonsense. They can rob me if they want, I don`t mind, because the simple fact is that if I had a gun on me, and tried to use it, hte chances of me getting killed increase PHENOMENALLY. The chances of me getting robbed are reduced, yes, but the chances of me getting killed are correspondingly increased. I don`t mind getting robbed, as opposed to a 50/50 chance of getting killed.

 

[Spiderman]

Um, "shoot black people"? Why are they singled out?

How anybody can possibly argue that increasing the number of lethal weapons in circulation would reduce the number of deaths by lethal weapon is beyond me. All that anti-crime nonsense is just nonsense. They can rob me if they want, I don`t mind, because the simple fact is that if I had a gun on me, and tried to use it, hte chances of me getting killed increase PHENOMENALLY. The chances of me getting robbed are reduced, yes, but the chances of me getting killed are correspondingly increased. I don`t mind getting robbed, as opposed to a 50/50 chance of getting killed.

Do you have statistics to back you up on this? Just curious...

 

[Namielus]

Your talking about taking away firearms to lessen the amount of gun violence? I have but 1 problem with this train of thought, If someone is will to take a gun and shoot people to kill them, don't you think if there willing to do that they will be able to get weapons?

I don't think the problem lies with weapons but with the values of this current generation. From what I've seen of this last bit of Gen-x is that people feel more depressed, care less for what is really important in there lives and use escapism to avoid everything they dislike. (I'm not saying magic is necessarily a bad thing for escaping the horrors of every day life). A lack of values/media coverage is what responsible for the shootings not guns.

 

[Daggertooth]

by GizmoThat said. The whole bomb thing is just messed up. If kids are going to go around and get the expertise, equipment, and time to build a place a bomb then something got screwed up a long time ago that nobody spotted this was going off, like counselors or somebody should have stepped in eons ago. But I kind of got the impression that bombings were WAY more rare than shootings.

From what I've read from CNN headlines it appears that Bombing threats are as common if not more so than gun threats.

If a kid is going around to shoot people then something got screwed up long time ago. Besides, It takes no expertise,little equipment, and little time to make a bomb. Wasn't there bombs in columbine? Here is a small recipe I picked up on the internet in a 5 minute search. If I remember correctly this was the kind of bomb that took out that Oklahoma building.

From the Jolly Rogers Cookbook
How to make a fertilizer bomb by Jolly Roger

Ingredients:

- Newspaper
- Fertilizer (the chemical kind, GREEN THUMB or ORCHO)
- Cotton
- Diesel fuel

Make a pouch out of the newspaper and put some fertilizer in it.
Then put cotton on top. Soak the cotton with fuel. Then light and
run like you have never ran before! This blows up 500 square feet
so don't do it in an alley!! -RFLAGG-

Where did you get your initial statistics? These statistics are hard to find and I would like to try and use your source.



Banning guns is not a step in the right direction. It is just a scapegoat for the real problem. The violent tendencies in teens. Sure its the most commonly used medium at the moment, but if you take that away another medium, just as deadly, will be found. With the banning of guns you don't only effect the gun related accidents, you also cripple an entire industry as well as Undermine the conservation effort. (through the fish and wildlife management and other organizations that rely on funding from hunters.) Not to mention make millions of Americans feel that their rights have been revoked. A very dangerous feeling for a country. All this in a vain attempt to halt school violence without touching the issue. It has never worked in the past and never will. Only till people are willing to grab the real problem will the violence start to slow.


Daggertooth

 

[Spiderman]

I think what Gizmo is saying is that ACTUAL bombings are rarer compared to actual shootings. I don't knwo what the ratio of bomb threats to shooting threats is though...

 

[Daggertooth]

Yes, I kinda figured that. The fact of the matter is actual bombing is very rare at the moment. I still feel that if guns were banned violent students will migrate to this and other deadly activites.

Oh, And I finaly found some great statistics. Its a list of everyone who died between 1992 till today. It also included suicide, but thats okay.

you have to Download it, so don't be lazy,(Spidey *glares at you*) cause it is a bit long. its at http://www.nssc1.org/

The graphs at the end are the most helpful. Sad thing is, most of the deaths there was no reason for. (according to the report)

Daggertooth

 

[Spiderman]

Spiderman looks innocently around.

"Who, me?"

Man, I'm gonna have to wait until Monday to see it. I'm kinda busy now and won't be able to get on tomorrow (which means I'll probably miss some good discussions ) Thanks though!

 

[Multani]

Daggertooth: I'll give you the point with your statistics.

However, I still don't agree with your idea about education and values, and I still think that guns should be banned. It may not be the biggest factor in school shootings, but I think they should still be banned. Like Giz said, knives may not kill, and you can run from knives....
Also, have you considered the possibility that maybe guns are the cause of violent tendencies? It's an interesting thought. If you have a gun in your house, there is a chance you cave in to violent instincts despite education, counselling, etc.

 

[Daggertooth]

MultaniAlso, have you considered the possibility that maybe guns are the cause of violent tendencies? It's an interesting thought. If you have a gun in your house, there is a chance you cave in to violent instincts despite education, counseling, etc.

Ahhh, but what causes the cave in? I don't think it's instincts. After all, instincts were made to survive . Not to kill others.

I believe the problem lies in our society. What are the best shows on TV? Rated R bloodbaths. If someone's not dying every few minutes it's not a good show. This brainwashes the student into accepting violence as a way of life. (which it is) It then shows that through violence you can get revenge. Here in lies the heart of the shooting problem.

Only through education and Censorship of all the violence will the true core of the problem be attacked.

Theres only one problem with this Idea. I like rated R shows.

But seriously, it is the media we should be attacking. Not the medium. After all, In the words of the most fanatical NRA people, "guns don't kill people, people kill people. )


Daggertooth