And another school shooting

[Davy]

Police search for 'active shooter' at school in Parkland, Florida - BBC News

 

[Two Headed Boy]

That’s the 18th shooting in a school so far in 2018 apparently. Shocking stat.

 

[HenryLB]

They're all having a jolly good pray, though. So I expect that's the last one.

 

[greencol]

He'll turn out to be 'white supremacist '.

Or aff his fuckkin nut.

My money is on both.

 

[aggie]

Too many guns in circulation, Americans have different mindset, nothing to be done, etc, etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Doc Shrink]

Clearly the answer is to arm the teachers.

Or perhaps give out weapons to the kids for self defence.

Simples.

 

[BurbankHibee]

Unbelievable that an unstable teenager can legally buy a weapon (several as it turns out) of mass destruction. He's not even old enough to buy a six pack of beer !! It's absolute fucking madness over here.

 

[SuperTortolano]

Unbelievable that an unstable teenager can legally buy a weapon (several as it turns out) of mass destruction. He's not even old enough to buy a six pack of beer !! It's absolute $#@!ing madness over here.

I agree, some of the laws are sheer madness. If I want to buy a six shot revolver, I need a purchasers permit, or concealed carry permit. Same with any handgun. Then I need to fill in paperwork with the seller and submit a copy to the state police. If I want to buy an AK47 or AR15, I can go on Armslist.com, meet the seller in a parking lot somewhere, and cash and carry with no paperwork or ID needed.

 

[PILTONSTANY]

It must be shite being American,having to justify the right to own arms after each time bunch of school kids have been murdered.

 

[Purple & Green]

Clearly the answer is to arm the teachers.

Or perhaps give out weapons to the kids for self defence.

Simples.

That’s exactly what someone said on radio 4 this morning. More guns might have saved lives.

They are completely bonkers.

 

[Hammi]

The right to bare arms is such an old idea too.
It was passed so they could defend themselves against another British invasion or uprising from within.

So many pointless deaths

 

[Kenny]

That’s exactly what someone said on radio 4 this morning. More guns might have saved lives.

They are completely bonkers.

-95% of Americans want stronger background checks
-75% want military-style weapons banned
-75% of Americans don’t own a gun
-3% own half of all guns

not sure the source - but figures regularly banded abt on social media

 

[Dub]

The right to bare arms is such an old idea too.
It was passed so they could defend themselves against another British invasion or uprising from within.

So many pointless deaths

Exactly. The right to bear arms was put in to force in 1791 when the most anyone could think of was a musket. Single shot, took time to reload. Nowadays any half wit can get their hands on an AK or a multitude of automatic/semi automatic guns and run around proclaiming it's their right to have them.

 

[Hammi]

-95% of Americans want stronger background checks
-75% want military-style weapons banned
-75% of Americans don’t own a gun
-3% own half of all guns

not sure the source - but figures regularly banded abt on social media

42% of all households had at least 1 gun in 2017.
So those numbers sound massaged a bit.

 

[aggie]

A society that will tolerate kids getting shot in school over and over again, and do fuckall about it, has got some front even calling itself a society.

America is full of apologist wanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vasco de gama]

42% of all households had at least 1 gun in 2017.
So those numbers sound massaged a bit.

Anecdotally guns tend to be 'owned' by the male of the household so if 42% of households have guns but 90% of those guns are 'owned' by a guy then the 75/25 figure doesn't seem too unreasonable. Similarly, as witnessed by our own gun loving Hibby, it seems that once bitten by the love bug of guns folk go a bit loco and end up amassing an arsenal. Therefore the 3% owning so many again doesn't seem too crazy.

There is no logic to the gun debate here. Pointing out that civilians owning guns does not make anyone safer is simply not believed. Just like so many still believe Obama is a Muslim secret agent and that fluoride in the water is a plot by the communists. The only way the gun lovers are ever going to agree to give up their guns is for there to be a change in their overall attitude to life. That is a multi-generational thing and will happen in waves and then suffer reversals occasionally. It hugely unlikely to happen in my lifetime to any great degree but that doesn't stop me hoping.

 

[hibs1986]

I've never seen the statistics of 'upstanding citizen shooting baddie' gun deaths, as opposed to 'baddies shooting goodies(or other baddies)' gun deaths. Does the self-defence argument hold water? That's a genuine question. I suspect not, but even if it does it seems like a high risk strategy: the bad guy is prepared and ready, the teacher / shopper in Walmart / guy in a bar is otherwise occupied and currently mentally unprepared and unarmed - I think you'd probably have to be pretty lucky to save yourself. In terms of stopping mass shootings, an armed member of the public might reduce casualties, but a well-prepared shooter could cause a lot of damage before being shot. The Florida shooter did that fairly easily with smoke bombs and a fire alarm.

It's interesting the way the need too defend a fledgling nation has morphed into what exists today in the US, compared with Switzerland, where gun ownership seems to have stayed all about civic responsibility to bear arms for the state, if called upon (and shooting themselves...). Like VDG says above, the attitudes to gun ownership will take generations to change, but you have to start somewhere, surely. :dunno: And as someone said on twitter yesterday, if Thoughts and Prayers are good enough for the families of slaughtered children, then they're surely good enough for people sad about losing their guns.

 

[HenryLB]

I've never seen the statistics of 'upstanding citizen shooting baddie' gun deaths, as opposed to 'baddies shooting goodies(or other baddies)' gun deaths. Does the self-defence argument hold water? That's a genuine question. I suspect not, but even if it does it seems like a high risk strategy: the bad guy is prepared and ready, the teacher / shopper in Walmart / guy in a bar is otherwise occupied and currently mentally unprepared and unarmed - I think you'd probably have to be pretty lucky to save yourself. In terms of stopping mass shootings, an armed member of the public might reduce casualties, but a well-prepared shooter could cause a lot of damage before being shot. The Florida shooter did that fairly easily with smoke bombs and a fire alarm.

At the risk of being pretentious, I think this says something about US attitudes - that a lot of people genuinely believe in 'goodies' and baddies'. And that there's a weird belief in those goodies' ability to react like someone would in a crappy film if they were attacked by a baddie and happened to be armed.

I remember after the Aurora shooting (the one in a cinema in Texas) there were folk saying that if another audience member had had a gun they would have stopped it. WTF? A guy shooting indiscriminately into a dark and rapidly smoke-filled auditorium, thunderous noise, blinding flashes, and some guy is going to calmly slot him with a 9mm pistol? Madness.

When the congresswoman (Giffords?) was shot about ten years ago there was a guy on the scene with a gun. He drew it and went to shoot, but thankfully didn't because he was aiming at one of Giffords' security people who he thought was the shooter!

The other thing I don't understand is why they have prohibitive laws around things like alcohol. If laws won't stop criminals getting guns how do they prevent people under 21 buying alcohol? The logical conclusion is to have no rules at all.

 

[southfieldhibby]

The other thing I don't understand is why they have prohibitive laws around things like alcohol. If laws won't stop criminals getting guns how do they prevent people under 21 buying alcohol? The logical conclusion is to have no rules at all.

I've seen some weight added to this most recent maniac by describing him as a kid. He was 19, old enough to serve in the armed forces and drive a car, but not old enough to buy a beer. America is so screwed up it's painful.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

America is so screwed up it's painful.

I’m not sure America is messed up, but it’s approach to firearms certainly is.

Something has to be done. Innocent kids are getting shot up when they go to school, and there are elected people arguing that security should be ramped up to the level of a prison. A prison! And all because a small percentage of the population have developed a cognitive blind spot when it comes to carrying weapons. I understand that there’s a significant cultural difference between the States and ourselves (for example), but how can any pro-weapon person argue that the rules are fine as they are with a straight face?

Of course, the typical response is to deflect the argument onto something else. Much of this case has been moved to the question of mental health, and the suggestion that weapons aren’t the problem – a shooter’s state of mind is. But Irvine Welsh torched this view with his usual acerbic wit: bams with guns can kill people, while bams without guns wank in their parents basements.

The last shooting we discussed on these forums, the Vegas sniper if I recall, saw another oft-cited argument trotted out:

”I’d support tighter laws, but only if they stop this type of thing happening”.

It’s presented as a reasonable stance, but is functionally no different to “GIMME GUNNZ BANG BANG”. The people that deploy it will poo-poo every single suggestion because it won’t stop that one committed, yet usually fictitious, madman who will get hold of a weapon, no matter what, and start spraying lead around. Doing this means they can say they support a rhetorical tightening of the laws, but they claw like rabid jaguars at anything that might take their assault rifle away. It’s like alcohol at the football; it may not stop every booze-fuelled rampage from the terraces, but it certainly decreases their regularity.

Of course, it’s about percentages. Smart people know that. If you lower the chances of someone getting a hold of a weapon, you lower the chances of them going on a shooting spree.

I’m just not sure America is ready for some common sense to be applied to its firearm laws.

 

[SuperTortolano]

I'm all for gun regulation that makes sense and would help stop these mass shootings. I definitely think there needs to be tighter restrictions when purchasing these rifles. Being able to legally buy these guns with no background check is insanity. They need to adapt the same laws as buying a handgun, where you need a purchaser permit from the sheriff or a concealed carry permit. After that the gun is registered to you the buyer until sold. Also the age limit should be raised to 21 before being able to own a gun.

In this situation I think laying the blame solely on the gun is very naive. This could have and should have been easily avoided. His foster parents let him store weapons in his room and let him amass a small arsenal. At 19 years old he shouldn't have these weapons at all, never mind access like that. Secondly he was expelled from school and not allowed to carry a backpack. His classmates more or less called this event, yet it still happened. And thirdly the FBI dropped the ball in a major way. He posted on social media what he planned, they had been contacted on more than one occasion that this individual was a danger, but did nothing. This shooting should have been stopped no doubt.

Another problem are the facts not being presented factually. After the Vegas shooting the call was to ban bump stocks. Personally I couldn't care less if they banned them. I watched a video with two trained shooters at the range. A regular rifle and bump stock. The bump stock emptied the magazine a half second faster than the rifle, while the rifle was more accurate. So banning it really doesn't change anything.

I think there needs to be some kind of regulation. I think both parties need to give and take on both sides. I don't see why the country can't make having a concealed carry permit legal in all states, rather than having to research state by state to see which ones are legal to carry in. I think mental health should be taken in to consideration. People on anti depressants probably shouldn't have access to a firearm. People that do carry should set a test every five years when they renew. Make sure they are still a competent shooter.

Now at the end of the day do I think this will stop these shootings happening? Nope. They may make it a little harder, but someone set on doing this will ultimately do it. There's a bigger picture here and it's humanity. The United States had guns 50-60 years ago. No background checks, you could go in to your local hardware store buy a gun and no hoops. Kids took guns to school and went hunting after school or plinked cans. Back then this level of violence didn't happen or even close to it. So what changed that makes this happen? People will say more guns, I don't buy that. People had access to fully automatic weapons back then and they didn't have this craziness. I don't think it's one certain thing, but many different things combined.

The internet, social media, realistic online video games, people being desensitized to violence. Web sites like Liveleak, processed foods, prescription drugs, less human interaction and more texting. We live in a world where we want everything tomorrow, and fast paced living. And then when these individuals crack for whatever reason, you have the gun.

I'm happy to listen, debate and hopefully agree with a solution. I know many disagree with my point of view, that's cool, let's not attack each other on a personal level though.

 

[aggie]

I'm all for gun regulation that makes sense and would help stop these mass shootings. I definitely think there needs to be tighter restrictions when purchasing these rifles. Being able to legally buy these guns with no background check is insanity. They need to adapt the same laws as buying a handgun, where you need a purchaser permit from the sheriff or a concealed carry permit. After that the gun is registered to you the buyer until sold. Also the age limit should be raised to 21 before being able to own a gun.

In this situation I think laying the blame solely on the gun is very naive. This could have and should have been easily avoided. His foster parents let him store weapons in his room and let him amass a small arsenal. At 19 years old he shouldn't have these weapons at all, never mind access like that. Secondly he was expelled from school and not allowed to carry a backpack. His classmates more or less called this event, yet it still happened. And thirdly the FBI dropped the ball in a major way. He posted on social media what he planned, they had been contacted on more than one occasion that this individual was a danger, but did nothing. This shooting should have been stopped no doubt.

Another problem are the facts not being presented factually. After the Vegas shooting the call was to ban bump stocks. Personally I couldn't care less if they banned them. I watched a video with two trained shooters at the range. A regular rifle and bump stock. The bump stock emptied the magazine a half second faster than the rifle, while the rifle was more accurate. So banning it really doesn't change anything.

I think there needs to be some kind of regulation. I think both parties need to give and take on both sides. I don't see why the country can't make having a concealed carry permit legal in all states, rather than having to research state by state to see which ones are legal to carry in. I think mental health should be taken in to consideration. People on anti depressants probably shouldn't have access to a firearm. People that do carry should set a test every five years when they renew. Make sure they are still a competent shooter.

Now at the end of the day do I think this will stop these shootings happening? Nope. They may make it a little harder, but someone set on doing this will ultimately do it. There's a bigger picture here and it's humanity. The United States had guns 50-60 years ago. No background checks, you could go in to your local hardware store buy a gun and no hoops. Kids took guns to school and went hunting after school or plinked cans. Back then this level of violence didn't happen or even close to it. So what changed that makes this happen? People will say more guns, I don't buy that. People had access to fully automatic weapons back then and they didn't have this craziness. I don't think it's one certain thing, but many different things combined.

The internet, social media, realistic online video games, people being desensitized to violence. Web sites like Liveleak, processed foods, prescription drugs, less human interaction and more texting. We live in a world where we want everything tomorrow, and fast paced living. And then when these individuals crack for whatever reason, you have the gun.

I'm happy to listen, debate and hopefully agree with a solution. I know many disagree with my point of view, that's cool, let's not attack each other on a personal level though.

That's as equivocal as I've heard you on this issue, ST, fair play.

The major issue for me is that the US continues to do nothing. Literally nothing. That's incomprehensible to me.

 

[SuperTortolano]

That's as equivocal as I've heard you on this issue, ST, fair play.The major issue for me is that the US continues to do nothing. Literally nothing. That's incomprehensible to me.

I think adopting the same laws as handguns would be a start. Every state is different, but having some kind of background check before being able to purchase a rifle should be mandatory. People say the shooters choice is always an AR15 as it's deadlier. Personally I think it's the shooters choice as it's easier to obtain without a background check or red flags.

 

[BurbankHibee]

The major issue for me is that the US continues to do nothing. Literally nothing. That's incomprehensible to me.

That's not accurate. They regulations get tinkered with pretty regularly state by state. But really, they just tinker around the edges, things like magazine capacity or something. Everything is hamstrung by the "what if" and the "it won't stop the determined shooter" and the constitution, 2nd amendment etc. There has been a ban on "assault" weapons before. And then there is the exhausting argument about what constitutes an "assault weapon". And if you ban it in CA, what's to stop someone going to another state and picking up an AR-15 ? So the lawmakers end up going around in a lot of circles and passing in effective laws. Anyway, Dianne Feinstein is putting a bill before congress to up the age of when you can buy a weapon of mass destruction like the AR-15 to 21. It's a small step and there will be plenty of arguments about the futility of this keeping the guns out of the hands of crazies, it would only defer the inevitable until Cruz reached 21 etc.

 

[Hammi]

There's an Alabama senator wanting to pass a bill that'll arm teachers.

Ffs eh

More guns is not the answer and who's to say every teacher wants to be armed, why the fuck should they also let teachers who might be getting stressed out of their mind carry around kids :dunno:

 

[SuperTortolano]

There's an Alabama senator wanting to pass a bill that'll arm teachers.

Ffs eh

More guns is not the answer and who's to say every teacher wants to be armed, why the $#@! should they also let teachers who might be getting stressed out of their mind carry around kids :dunno:

I don't like the sound of armed teachers at all. So many things could go wrong. Like you say a teacher going off, or a kid attacking the teacher to grab his/her gun. Possibly having a couple of retired detectives or cops in schools, again things can go wrong.

 

[Hammi]

I don't like the sound of armed teachers at all. So many things could go wrong. Like you say a teacher going off, or a kid attacking the teacher to grab his/her gun. Possibly having a couple of retired detectives or cops in schools, again things can go wrong.

Those are obviously worst case and rightly the first thought.
But if this was to happen in a school with armed teachers, whether it's one which has the problem that they're nowhere near at the time, do they need to go to a safe to retrieve it? The ensuing chaos makes it impossible for them to really protect anyone.
If it's multiple then the chaos makes it worse if everyone tries to be a hero.

Civilians shouldn't be armed for the sole purpose of protecting people, some relevant training is nowhere near the same as any of the actual forces or agencies and while a job is certainly done, look how many incidents you get with them.

Even considering what's happened, I wouldn't want to send my kid to an armed school, maybe campus guards or whatever, but not teachers or aids, in the classroom or hallways.

 

[SuperTortolano]

Another thing that never gets mentioned in the media is the use of prescription drugs. What drugs are these maniacs on and have been taking for years and years. Something inside there heads is broken and doesn't function like a normal human being. I'm almost 40 and growing up none of my friends had depression, ADHD, gluten allergies or peanut allergies. I'm not saying they didn't exist, but weren't as prevalent as today that's for sure. WTF happened to us? I'll hazard a guess and say it's all the shit they put in food and big pharma pushing drugs whenever they can.

 

[Jack]

Another thing that never gets mentioned in the media is the use of prescription drugs. What drugs are these maniacs on and have been taking for years and years. Something inside there heads is broken and doesn't function like a normal human being. I'm almost 40 and growing up none of my friends had depression, ADHD, gluten allergies or peanut allergies. I'm not saying they didn't exist, but weren't as prevalent as today that's for sure. WTF happened to us? I'll hazard a guess and say it's all the shit they put in food and big pharma pushing drugs whenever they can.

In my opinion that's classic deflection.

1 in 4 of the western population will suffer depression at sometime in their life. Including me.

In countries other than the USA you don't see hundreds of people looking for alternative methods from guns for murdering thousands of people.

The only thing that's sets the USA apart is easy access to weapons.

Big pharma have a lot to answer for. Probably the only thing they have in common with the gun lobby though is having concealed politicians in their pockets!

 

[vasco de gama]

That's as equivocal as I've heard you on this issue, ST, fair play.

The major issue for me is that the US continues to do nothing. Literally nothing. That's incomprehensible to me.

The latter part of Joe's post reveals a level of thought and ambiguity I never knew he had. It's a very important question as to why the level of mass shootings and general gun violence has soared so much over the decades.
So many variables and the majority simply aren't easy fixes - even if some people do think they can be solved just by building a great big wall and deporting a lot of well educated and hard working people.

I'm totally of the opinion that in a properly functioning democracy there is absolutely no need, or moral reason, for private citizens to own guns. Guns as a hobby is not a good bough reason and if it really was just a hobby then going to a contained gun range where you get to hire a gun for use on the premises only should be enough.

However... I get why there will always be the 'self protection' argument as we presently don't have a properly functioning democracy or an effective police service. Thankfully we've only had to call 911 once, when a neighbor was threatening to beat up his wife, it took 20 minutes for them to answer the call! Then a further 45 minutes for a squad car to show up. We live in Los Angeles so it's not like they can claim it's our remoteness or poor phone connection that caused either of these delays. So I can see how someone could claim they have a gun because they just don't think the authorities are up to protecting us. I do though still believe that by taking protection into our own civilian hands we are actually putting ourselves into more risk than if we just called 911 and waited and waited and waited. Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule where having a gun did protect a citizen and didn't result in them accidentally blowing there own child's head off etc.

Btw we got the lassie and her bairn out the house and the guy was taken away.

 

[Hammi]

I think adderall is a huge problem. So freely and actively prescribed.

But it's the guns that cause these problems, without them the devastation would be considerably less.

 

[SuperTortolano]

I think adderall is a huge problem. So freely and actively prescribed.But it's the guns that cause these problems, without them the devastation would be considerably less.

I disagree about putting the blame solely on the gun. I don't put the blame on prescription drugs solely either. Like I said I think there's a multitude of reasons why this is happening more frequently and there needs to be some kind of solution. I get that the simple solution would be to get rid of all guns. Sounds so easy, but really would be VERY hard to implement.

What you see in the media are states like California and New York pushing for bans and gun control. What you don't see are the southern states like Texas and Oklahoma that would never disarm there citizens. It will eventually happen, but probably not in my lifetime. The older generation will die off and the newer generation have less and less interest in guns.

If banning all guns is not an option, then other measures need to take place. Restrictions on age and registration is a start. Also why not take a look in to some of these drugs like you mentioned. Should someone on these drugs be able to own a firearm? Why you don't see this questioned is that the FDA has approve do them and there's billions of dollars at stake.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

I'm all for gun regulation that makes sense and would help stop these mass shootings.

In this situation I think laying the blame solely on the gun is very naive.

This is what I was describing earlier.

Classic misdirection, but carefully pre-empted by a signal of virtue.

If what I’m about to say comes across as a personal attack, it’s because I find what you’re personally saying to be abhorrent.

Here’s why:

If there are no guns in the hands of ordinary citizens, they cannot go on a shooting spree.

It’s that simple.

Now, it’s clearly possible that you don’t know you’re misdirecting the blame in order to protect your right to carry an item designed to kill people. Your bias could be 100% subconscious. But other countries have problems with bad parenting, depression, social exclusion (a significant contribution to Columbine, the first of these incidents I really paid attention to for religious reasons) and prescription drugs. What those countries don’t have, is ready access to powerful firearms. As a result, those countries don’t have citizens with problems nipping out and destroying families that just want their children to come home after a day at school.

It’s NOT naïve to blame the gun.

It’s absolutely appropriate to blame the gun.

From the Molotov cocktail that promotes these shootings, it’s the one thing that you can remove and save thousands of lives by doing.

Would it be hard to do?

Absolutely.

But so is theoretical physics. We still have research doctorates moving into the field, however, because it’s worthwhile.

Another problem are the facts not being presented factually.

This is absolutely true.

Much of the debate is horribly muddied, by both sides, presenting a number of statistics that are deeply misleading. This is because they’re supposed to be misleading, in order to serve one side of the debate or the other. But this is no different to sports commentary, political commentary, international commentary… Any commentary. Any social issue will see arguments put forward, supported by “evidence”, which is nothing of the sort. It’s typically a single fact, extrapolated into a conclusion, that happens to support the stance of the author.

Nietzsche was quite right.

People don’t let information form their opinions, they form their opinions and then try to make information conform to them.

We see this time and again, and we’re all guilty. Even the scientific community.

It’s why we get “facts” such as Michael Moore’s claim that 90% of Americans want tighter gun controls. Do they? Is that true? What was the question in the poll, who did you poll, and what was the actual response? Were these supporters of the type I described, those who aren’t actually supporters of tighter controls at all and who will desperately try to deflect the blame no matter what?

Other “facts” are more nefarious. They don’t take into account the number of weapons a household has (as opposed to a person), who the actual owner is (as opposed to a family or organisation), which states have the loosest controls (as opposed to the tightest) or any other number of individual factors that could contribute to a shooting. These things all matter, but they confuse a debate that needs to kept emotive and simple, purely to ensure people come firmly to one side rather than take a nuanced view that tries to understand all sides of the debate.

None of this, of course, changes the base premise: no guns means no gun-related deaths.

I think both parties need to give and take on both sides.

The pro-weapon side of the debate has already taken the lives of thousands of innocent people; many of them children.

What else do you think the anti-weapon side of the debate should be giving? A few more massacres? How many is too many?

Call me crazy, but I think ONE is too many.

The internet, social media, realistic online video games, people being desensitized to violence. Web sites like Liveleak, processed foods, prescription drugs, less human interaction and more texting. We live in a world where we want everything tomorrow, and fast paced living. And then when these individuals crack for whatever reason, you have the gun.

This is all true, of course, but read the paragraph again and then take out the last part of the final sentence.

The western world is now mired in an online, digital existence of pornography and video games, where instant gratification must be delivered, food has to be fast, and personal relationships are a distraction. The rest of the world doesn’t have several military’s worth of firearms circulating into the hands of their depressed, de-sensitized children.

Spot the difference in results.

But “it’s not the guns”. No, no. It can’t be the guns.

I'm happy to listen, debate and hopefully agree with a solution. I know many disagree with my point of view, that's cool, let's not attack each other on a personal level though.

Here’s the solution:

Ban firearms completely, outside of extremely tightly controlled regulations where their legal use is severely limited. Make the law on their proliferation national, rather than state-based, and have an eighteen-month amnesty where Americans can either fit in with the new regulations and become properly licenced, or hand their weapons back into the police with no questions asked. After that, you prosecute and jail every single carrier of an unlicensed weapon. Proliferators get an immediate life sentence.

No more personal defence with a firearm.

No more home defence with a firearm.

No more DESPICABLE talk of arming teachers.

That’s where you start, and then you engage in the give and take that was mentioned earlier. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of 2009, there was one firearm for every citizen in America; a number that has doubled since ’68, arriving at more than 300,000,000 in total, and is now probably higher given the higher population. The number is probably now around 330,000,000.

Private weapons.

In one country.

Not including military stocks.

America, unsurprisingly, tops the list of guns per capita, with almost double the number of firearms in other civilized countries such as Serbia (take a look at what’s been happening in the Balkans over the last two decades) and Yemen (take a look at what’s happening NOW). A civilized western country like America was killing over ten people per 100,000 every year, with its most similar cousin, the United Kingdom, managing 0.23 as of 2011. Of course, the UK has a rate of around six weapons per 100 people which is a difference of over 94%. We need to get to 400,000 people before someone has been shot, while America will have racked up 42 bodies by that point. That’s around 2.4%, smaller than the six percent of weapons per capita, which implies (not proves) that our regulations also work better.

At the end of the day, the UK is probably the country most similar to the US these days and the difference in gun-related violence couldn’t be starker because it’s the one area of policy where, arguably, we’re the most divergent.

America needs to sort it out, but won’t.

The domestic weapons trade provides a solid income to an economy that’s hemorrhaging money in similar ways to us, and the same right-wing beneficiaries are in all the same lobbies.

Don’t expect common sense any time soon, when people argue that prescription drugs are causing mass shootings rather than the weapons that are actually spraying the bullets.

 

[SuperTortolano]

This is what I was describing earlier.

Classic misdirection, but carefully pre-empted by a signal of virtue.

If what I’m about to say comes across as a personal attack, it’s because I find what you’re personally saying to be abhorrent.

Here’s why:

If there are no guns in the hands of ordinary citizens, they cannot go on a shooting spree.

It’s that simple.

Now, it’s clearly possible that you don’t know you’re misdirecting the blame in order to protect your right to carry an item designed to kill people. Your bias could be 100% subconscious. But other countries have problems with bad parenting, depression, social exclusion (a significant contribution to Columbine, the first of these incidents I really paid attention to for religious reasons) and prescription drugs. What those countries don’t have, is ready access to powerful firearms. As a result, those countries don’t have citizens with problems nipping out and destroying families that just want their children to come home after a day at school.

It’s NOT naïve to blame the gun.

It’s absolutely appropriate to blame the gun.

From the Molotov $#@!tail that promotes these shootings, it’s the one thing that you can remove and save thousands of lives by doing.

Would it be hard to do?

Absolutely.

But so is theoretical physics. We still have research doctorates moving into the field, however, because it’s worthwhile.


This is absolutely true.

Much of the debate is horribly muddied, by both sides, presenting a number of statistics that are deeply misleading. This is because they’re supposed to be misleading, in order to serve one side of the debate or the other. But this is no different to sports commentary, political commentary, international commentary… Any commentary. Any social issue will see arguments put forward, supported by “evidence”, which is nothing of the sort. It’s typically a single fact, extrapolated into a conclusion, that happens to support the stance of the author.

Nietzsche was quite right.

People don’t let information form their opinions, they form their opinions and then try to make information conform to them.

We see this time and again, and we’re all guilty. Even the scientific community.

It’s why we get “facts” such as Michael Moore’s claim that 90% of Americans want tighter gun controls. Do they? Is that true? What was the question in the poll, who did you poll, and what was the actual response? Were these supporters of the type I described, those who aren’t actually supporters of tighter controls at all and who will desperately try to deflect the blame no matter what?

Other “facts” are more nefarious. They don’t take into account the number of weapons a household has (as opposed to a person), who the actual owner is (as opposed to a family or organisation), which states have the loosest controls (as opposed to the tightest) or any other number of individual factors that could contribute to a shooting. These things all matter, but they confuse a debate that needs to kept emotive and simple, purely to ensure people come firmly to one side rather than take a nuanced view that tries to understand all sides of the debate.

None of this, of course, changes the base premise: no guns means no gun-related deaths.


The pro-weapon side of the debate has already taken the lives of thousands of innocent people; many of them children.

What else do you think the anti-weapon side of the debate should be giving? A few more massacres? How many is too many?

Call me crazy, but I think ONE is too many.


This is all true, of course, but read the paragraph again and then take out the last part of the final sentence.

The western world is now mired in an online, digital existence of pornography and video games, where instant gratification must be delivered, food has to be fast, and personal relationships are a distraction. The rest of the world doesn’t have several military’s worth of firearms circulating into the hands of their depressed, de-sensitized children.

Spot the difference in results.

But “it’s not the guns”. No, no. It can’t be the guns.


Here’s the solution:

Ban firearms completely, outside of extremely tightly controlled regulations where their legal use is severely limited. Make the law on their proliferation national, rather than state-based, and have an eighteen-month amnesty where Americans can either fit in with the new regulations and become properly licenced, or hand their weapons back into the police with no questions asked. After that, you prosecute and jail every single carrier of an unlicensed weapon. Proliferators get an immediate life sentence.

No more personal defence with a firearm.

No more home defence with a firearm.

No more DESPICABLE talk of arming teachers.

That’s where you start, and then you engage in the give and take that was mentioned earlier. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of 2009, there was one firearm for every citizen in America; a number that has doubled since ’68, arriving at more than 300,000,000 in total, and is now probably higher given the higher population. The number is probably now around 330,000,000.

Private weapons.

In one country.

Not including military stocks.

America, unsurprisingly, tops the list of guns per capita, with almost double the number of firearms in other civilized countries such as Serbia (take a look at what’s been happening in the Balkans over the last two decades) and Yemen (take a look at what’s happening NOW). A civilized western country like America was killing over ten people per 100,000 every year, with its most similar cousin, the United Kingdom, managing 0.23 as of 2011. Of course, the UK has a rate of around six weapons per 100 people which is a difference of over 94%. We need to get to 400,000 people before someone has been shot, while America will have racked up 42 bodies by that point. That’s around 2.4%, smaller than the six percent of weapons per capita, which implies (not proves) that our regulations also work better.

At the end of the day, the UK is probably the country most similar to the US these days and the difference in gun-related violence couldn’t be starker because it’s the one area of policy where, arguably, we’re the most divergent.

America needs to sort it out, but won’t.

The domestic weapons trade provides a solid income to an economy that’s hemorrhaging money in similar ways to us, and the same right-wing beneficiaries are in all the same lobbies.

Don’t expect common sense any time soon, when people argue that prescription drugs are causing mass shootings rather than the weapons that are actually spraying the bullets.

I'm 100% behind a solution that works. Your solution about banning firearms is nothing more than a pipe dream. Americans will not give up the 2nd amendment and have there guns taken. There would be war on the streets before that would happen. I've lived here long enough to understand that it's not like Britain. Your not going to have an orderly line of citizens lined up to hand over there weapons. Personally I'd hand my guns over, but I'd be in the minority.

I'm not blaming prescription drugs solely on this and do agree the gun plays a huge roll in these massacres. What I'm trying to understand is why these events are happening more frequently than in the past. I don't think for a second that guns are going to be banned, so why not explore what else is going on? Is it a coincidence that these acts are carried out by young white adults and not women or black people? Even if you ban guns this madness won't stop. If they don't use a gun, it will be a vehicle or a sword, possibly even worse. Yes the number of deaths will potentially be lower, but young life's will still be taken. Why not try and find out why this is happening more frequently?

 

[Hammi]

I'm 100% behind a solution that works. Your solution about banning firearms is nothing more than a pipe dream. Americans will not give up the 2nd amendment and have there guns taken. There would be war on the streets before that would happen. I've lived here long enough to understand that it's not like Britain. Your not going to have an orderly line of citizens lined up to hand over there weapons. Personally I'd hand my guns over, but I'd be in the minority.

I'm not blaming prescription drugs solely on this and do agree the gun plays a huge roll in these massacres. What I'm trying to understand is why these events are happening more frequently than in the past. I don't think for a second that guns are going to be banned, so why not explore what else is going on? Is it a coincidence that these acts are carried out by young white adults and not women or black people? Even if you ban guns this madness won't stop. If they don't use a gun, it will be a vehicle or a sword, possibly even worse. Yes the number of deaths will potentially be lower, but young life's will still be taken. Why not try and find out why this is happening more frequently?

It's because of the world we live in now.
There many, many more people.
There's far more guns, far higher power, higher firerate and ease of use.
Easier access, wider range, lots of information available at your fingertips.
Added to the mentality that you're entitled to these weapons is a dangerous mix on its own.

Of course, medication will affect some people. Games or movies isn't a point I agree with but why not...

The Dunblane shooting was pretty much before my time, I remember it but I was so young, but that changed everything here and we agreed with it, because that was a tragedy.
There's still guns here, it's not a secret, I've seen them and I've even lost a friend to gun violence.

Tbh, one innocent life is more important than anyone's entitlement to a weapon.
It's a disgrace that Americans refuse to accept it.

 

[SuperTortolano]

It's because of the world we live in now.
There many, many more people.
There's far more guns, far higher power, higher firerate and ease of use.
Easier access, wider range, lots of information available at your fingertips.
Added to the mentality that you're entitled to these weapons is a dangerous mix on its own.

Of course, medication will affect some people. Games or movies isn't a point I agree with but why not...

The Dunblane shooting was pretty much before my time, I remember it but I was so young, but that changed everything here and we agreed with it, because that was a tragedy.
There's still guns here, it's not a secret, I've seen them and I've even lost a friend to gun violence.

Tbh, one innocent life is more important than anyone's entitlement to a weapon.
It's a disgrace that Americans refuse to accept it.

And that there is the biggest problem. They simply won't give up there guns or have them taken away. No matter what "facts and figures" are thrown around, the majority of Americans believe in the right to own a gun.

The mentality of people this side of the pond is different than back home. I firmly believe they have less value on life and can be a more violent society. Some people won't think twice about attacking a cop or teacher, while back home that's a very rare thing. The level of violence here far exceeds what we have in the U.K. We have gang violence back home, but generally they aren't trying to kill each other, even in prison. Here they think nothing of killing another human being over what colours he wears. That's just my personal opinion, others that have moved here might disagree.

 

[BurbankHibee]

I'm 100% behind a solution that works. Your solution about banning firearms is nothing more than a pipe dream. Americans will not give up the 2nd amendment and have there guns taken. There would be war on the streets before that would happen. I've lived here long enough to understand that it's not like Britain. Your not going to have an orderly line of citizens lined up to hand over there weapons. Personally I'd hand my guns over, but I'd be in the minority.

I'm not blaming prescription drugs solely on this and do agree the gun plays a huge roll in these massacres. What I'm trying to understand is why these events are happening more frequently than in the past. I don't think for a second that guns are going to be banned, so why not explore what else is going on? Is it a coincidence that these acts are carried out by young white adults and not women or black people? Even if you ban guns this madness won't stop. If they don't use a gun, it will be a vehicle or a sword, possibly even worse. Yes the number of deaths will potentially be lower, but young life's will still be taken. Why not try and find out why this is happening more frequently?

The trouble I have with your argument is that you refuse to compromise unless there is a 100% solution. All this "Americans won't give up their guns" and it will be war is bullshit. Some unreasonable and irrational Americans may believe this to be true. The gun nut argument against gun control is almost always presented as bogeyman president/government wants to grab our guns and how do we defend ourselves against tyranny and the mass murderer will just choose another weapon. FFS, it's the year 2018, the war in your head is over. Plenty Americans will give up their guns if asked, for those that don't, we work with then over a period of time and eventually get there. Lots of Americans may still legally own guns there after if there is a valid reason for it. Hunters is one example. But they will not be permitted to have an AR-15 to hunt quail. Because it doesn't make any sense. So absent a weapon of mass destruction the mentally impaired psycho may indeed choose another method for causing carnage but then again, he might just no be arsed because other methods of mass slaughter are a bit more convoluted and require a bit more thought and preparation than reaching under the bed and pulling out the AR-15 he (almost always a he) and going down to his old high school. So stop putting up barriers and listen to what is actually being said rather than the incoherent bullshit that the gun nuts spew and work with the people in government to reduce the number of people that get needlessly slaughtered in this country. We look like a bunch of uncivilized barbarians with this shit going on.

 

[SuperTortolano]

The trouble I have with your argument is that you refuse to compromise unless there is a 100% solution. All this "Americans won't give up their guns" and it will be war is bull$#@!. Some unreasonable and irrational Americans may believe this to be true. The gun nut argument against gun control is almost always presented as bogeyman president/government wants to grab our guns and how do we defend ourselves against tyranny and the mass murderer will just choose another weapon. FFS, it's the year 2018, the war in your head is over. Plenty Americans will give up their guns if asked, for those that don't, we work with then over a period of time and eventually get there. Lots of Americans may still legally own guns there after if there is a valid reason for it. Hunters is one example. But they will not be permitted to have an AR-15 to hunt quail. Because it doesn't make any sense. So absent a weapon of mass destruction the mentally impaired psycho may indeed choose another method for causing carnage but then again, he might just no be arsed because other methods of mass slaughter are a bit more convoluted and require a bit more thought and preparation than reaching under the bed and pulling out the AR-15 he (almost always a he) and going down to his old high school. So stop putting up barriers and listen to what is actually being said rather than the incoherent bull$#@! that the gun nuts spew and work with the people in government to reduce the number of people that get needlessly slaughtered in this country. We look like a bunch of uncivilized barbarians with this $#@! going on.

Thats not true, I already mentioned the age to own one of these rifles should be raised along with a background check and registration. The AR15 is widely used in these situations as it's far too easy to obtain. This clown didn't have to pass any background check, just cash and walk out. Even easier if he bought LEGALLY from an individual. I've also mentioned people on certain medications or with Alzheimer's shouldn't have access to guns. I'm for change where I think it will make a difference and stop this from happening.

I don't see a war if they ban AR's or such, it's been done before and changed nothing. I do however see all hell kicking off if they try to ban guns completely. Maybe not in California or New York, but certainly in the southern states and pro gun states.

 

[Dub]

It's because of the world we live in now.
There many, many more people.
There's far more guns, far higher power, higher firerate and ease of use.
Easier access, wider range, lots of information available at your fingertips.
Added to the mentality that you're entitled to these weapons is a dangerous mix on its own.

Of course, medication will affect some people. Games or movies isn't a point I agree with but why not...

The Dunblane shooting was pretty much before my time, I remember it but I was so young, but that changed everything here and we agreed with it, because that was a tragedy.
There's still guns here, it's not a secret, I've seen them and I've even lost a friend to gun violence.

Tbh, one innocent life is more important than anyone's entitlement to a weapon.
It's a disgrace that Americans refuse to accept it.

It's odd though that medication or depression is only mentioned when the shooter is white. If he'/she is brown or black they suddenly become terrorists.

If you hear the terms lone wolf and/or suffering from depression you can practically tell what colour the shooter is before you see a picture.

- - - Updated - - -

The trouble I have with your argument is that you refuse to compromise unless there is a 100% solution. All this "Americans won't give up their guns" and it will be war is bullshit. Some unreasonable and irrational Americans may believe this to be true. The gun nut argument against gun control is almost always presented as bogeyman president/government wants to grab our guns and how do we defend ourselves against tyranny and the mass murderer will just choose another weapon. FFS, it's the year 2018, the war in your head is over. Plenty Americans will give up their guns if asked, for those that don't, we work with then over a period of time and eventually get there. Lots of Americans may still legally own guns there after if there is a valid reason for it. Hunters is one example. But they will not be permitted to have an AR-15 to hunt quail. Because it doesn't make any sense. So absent a weapon of mass destruction the mentally impaired psycho may indeed choose another method for causing carnage but then again, he might just no be arsed because other methods of mass slaughter are a bit more convoluted and require a bit more thought and preparation than reaching under the bed and pulling out the AR-15 he (almost always a he) and going down to his old high school. So stop putting up barriers and listen to what is actually being said rather than the incoherent bullshit that the gun nuts spew and work with the people in government to reduce the number of people that get needlessly slaughtered in this country. We look like a bunch of uncivilized barbarians with this shit going on.

:applause:

Thats not true, I already mentioned the age to own one of these rifles should be raised along with a background check and registration. The AR15 is widely used in these situations as it's far too easy to obtain. This clown didn't have to pass any background check, just cash and walk out. Even easier if he bought LEGALLY from an individual. I've also mentioned people on certain medications or with Alzheimer's shouldn't have access to guns. I'm for change where I think it will make a difference and stop this from happening.

I don't see a war if they ban AR's or such, it's been done before and changed nothing. I do however see all hell kicking off if they try to ban guns completely. Maybe not in California or New York, but certainly in the southern states and pro gun states.

Fukk them then. They are the tail wagging the dog and if a law is passed banning the ownership of guns then they either break the law making them subject to arrest and imprisonment or give the guns up. Why the fukk should some nutters who love guns get to say that they won't comply with the law?

 

[aggie]

Fukk them then. They are the tail wagging the dog and if a law is passed banning the ownership of guns then they either break the law making them subject to arrest and imprisonment or give the guns up. Why the fukk should some nutters who love guns get to say that they won't comply with the law?

100% this.

Having spent a lot of time in Texas (my dad's lived there for 17 years), I'd also say: call their fcukin bluff. For all their 'MURICA rhetoric, and all their banging on about FREEDOM, I'd be willing to bet good money that faced with the actual reality you'd get a few demos outside a government building, and a few radges going tonto, but 97% of the time you'd get kants sitting grumbling on their porches about the bad men taking away their penis substitutes.

As [MENTION=4263]Dub[/MENTION] says: fcuk them. The precious opinions of all of these ****s put together do not outweigh one single innocent life.