Another school shooting [Archive]

Rodion Romanovich

02-15-2008, 17:25

Hm, there's too much news coverage, true. But perhaps also another type of influence from mass media should be blamed - the way mass media encourages all people to build up unrealistic dreams, and the way mass media depicts getting world-wide attention as the goal in life and the greatest thing that can happen to you. Then, people are met with reality and can't take the fact that life for most people is much worse than these unrealistic dreams, and that life has also gotten much tougher in the latest 2 decades, especially for the lower and middle classes. 2 decades ago, people didn't watch nearly as much TV with reality shows etc that glorify world-wide attention and similar. Perhaps it is time TV channels should start taking responsibility and show less of this crap TV? After all, not many would be sad if programs like American Idol and so on would be removed from the tableaus. Notice something else? What was the first thing the woman "eye-witness" in that linked recording did after the event? Phone mass-media, to get attention! No call to the police, as would have been the right thing to do as a citizen (because at that time, she could have no way of knowing for sure he wasn't alive having left the scene and trying to get away), but a call to the news, to get her voice recorded and played out in the news... That just goes to show how attention-seeking people are being taught to be these days.

Fragony

02-15-2008, 17:27

A society that's changed. One that increasingly finds fault with and blames society, less sacredness of life, and more toleration for suicidal/emo/goth/the world is against me feelings. I can't quite put my finger on it, so this part is really quite rough.

I think it is because kids just aren't allowed to fend for theirselves today, the moment there is a conflict all sorts of gears are set in motion, talk, finding eachother you get it men raised by women. There is nothing wrong with moderate use of violence, hard to die from a few hits on the head or even a stab with a knife unless someone is very unlucky. Sort of a soft tyranny that leads to excesses such as this.

Crazed Rabbit

02-15-2008, 17:28

Oh, yes, that is true. There is certainly a glorification of publicity, no matter where it came from, in today's society, and that is a large factor I would think.

CR

LittleGrizzly

02-15-2008, 17:28

That's not to say these attacks didn't occur 40 years ago, they just happened much less often.

I thought that "i hate mondays" girl was the one who started the school shooting craze ? (documentary on BBC said so :P)

i don't think this can be blamed on emo or goth way of living as the people who are a bit messed up to start with are attracted to emo/goth style.

Lemur

02-15-2008, 17:50

Some random thoughts:

There is nobody on Earth as dangerous as a person who is convinced he is a victim. Once he's made that leap, decided that the world is unfair and against him, nothing is taboo, nothing is too much, no action is unjustified. Admittedly, feeling victimized is an essential part of the teenage years, but there's a major difference between occasionally feeling put-upon and making victimhood central to your identity.

I think a majority of the school shooters fall into this category; not all, mind you -- some are true psychopaths, such as Klebold and Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold). But sociopaths are rare, whereas people who think they've got the biggest sob story of all time are common as dirt.

So take your extreme example of early adult victim mentality (please!), and look at what feeds into his head. America has a peculiarity that I've noticed many times -- because we are a land of opportunity, and because anybody has the potential to be as successful as they like, there's a particular pressure on all of us. If anybody can be as rich as Bill Gates, why aren't you? If anybody can be President, why aren't you? Why are you failing in class, why aren't you popular, why isn't your family wealthier, why aren't you higher on the totem pole?

The vast majority of Americans make peace with this concept, either through logic, rationalization, acceptance, or what-have-you, but a tiny minority cannot. They cannot accept that their inherent limitations, not to mention luck, prevent them from rising any higher right now.

Last thought: As firearm fans point out, guns are the great equalizer. A 110-pound woman can hold her own with a 250-pound ex-con if she has a gun. A granny can chase off a thug if she has a gun. Guns level the playing field in a direct and final manner.

So add it up -- take the tiny percentage of teens/young adults who completely go over to the Dark Side of victimhood. Add in the unbearable (for them) pressure of a meritocracy. Finish the stew with a simple, deadly equalizing tool, and hey presto! You've got a good formula for school shootings.

I think this goes some small way toward explaining why school shootings are a predominantly American trend.

Rodion Romanovich

02-15-2008, 17:56

Hm, I think you make a few fallacies. One of them, being "meritocracy". No country in history, except the administration of Genghis Khan's hordes, has ever implemented meritocracy.

No, the problem is too high expectations combined with too low capabilities of fulfilling them. It's the relative distance between the two, not their absolute values, that matter. Raise expectations, and you must raise the level of reality to or you will increase the violence. Lower the life quality of reality, and you must lower expectations too, if you are to avoid an increase in violence.

All these views "it's 100% society's fault" and "it's 100% individuals feeling like victims" are one-sided, and dangerous, as they fail to attack the problem from both sides. If you choose the latter option, you need to silence the entire debate on improving real-life living conditions. If you choose the former option, you will encourage victimization feelings in the people that lie in the danger zone. Both risk increasing the gap between expectations fed by mass media, and what reality has to offer.

Fragony

02-15-2008, 18:03

I think this goes some small way toward explaining why school shootings are a predominantly American trend.

This the the third(?), there have been one in germany and also in finland just recently. There is more to it, I think I got it nailed.

Mikeus Caesar

02-15-2008, 18:07

Fragony

02-15-2008, 18:25

As someone who's been where these shooters have been (at one point me and a good friend were only weeks away from acting out on our desire when something major came up that changed our minds) i can sympathise with them. The world is a harsh cruel place when you feel that everyone is a dick and no one cares.

Well I have no sympathy at all, if you can't handle it just open your wrists and bleed or look for a high building and see if newton was right, and make sure not to drop onto someone of make a mess on the floor. Zero sympathy for these people, your problem is just that, your problem.

Edit: 5 dead, they must have felt that the comfortable bliss that was their being here on this clay was worth the lives of 5 other people, and just because things didn't go as they wanted, 5 people. How incredibbly self centered can you be?

Rodion Romanovich

02-15-2008, 18:45

Well I have no sympathy at all

I think we got that part by now

How incredibbly self centered can you be?
:inquisitive:

Fragony

02-15-2008, 18:55

You shouldn't be able to read this, ah well. Don't you think that when you are a bit dissapointed in life and want to end it it's rather selfish to drag 5 down with you without at least asking? You must feel rather important if you feel you have the right to unwillingly let them aid your rightious cause.

Rodion Romanovich

02-15-2008, 19:01

I think it's pointless to discuss morality, because morality is a vague concept. If you look at individual actions and what goals a society should have, it's obvious that it should be the goal of society to avoid this action, i.e. that this action is morally despicable, and that you should form your policies around a strategy of making sure to avoid this and other actions which belong to this group of despicable actions. But if you use the morality point of view of looking at a chain of causes and effects, there's another moral judgement which no human being is fit to make because they can never know the entire chain and can only speculate. Then there's the moral implication of just saying "the man is evil period", and denying that there's a chance that part of the cause in the cause and effect chain could have been easily removed, or even worse: advocating an increase in such causes. In short, it's rather pointless to discuss morality when something like this happens.

Lemur

02-15-2008, 19:02

Fragony, I think you're shadowboxing with yourself. Nobody is arguing that this shooting is anything but monstrous. What a few of us are trying to mull over is why they keep happening. You've expressed your disgust with the shooter multiple times; good, we get the point. Shooting people for no reason bad. We get it. We agree with it. All of us were there before you started hammering on it.

Let's just mosey to the two obvious questions:

Why do these shootings keep occurring?
Can/should anything be done to lower the frequency of these atrocities?

-edit-

In short, it's rather pointless to discuss morality when something like this happens.
Why, because the act is so self-evidently immoral? I can see that. If we want to get a handle on the problem, we need to look at causes, symptoms, ways to spot someone who's on the edge of going postal. I certainly think the anti-gun hysteria in schools isn't helping at all. You read about kids being suspended for drawing a gun or pointing their finger and going "bang"; I don't see how that helps anything.

Fragony

02-15-2008, 19:18

Already said why I think they are happening;

I think it is because kids just aren't allowed to fend for theirselves today, the moment there is a conflict all sorts of gears are set in motion, talk, finding eachother you get it men raised by women. There is nothing wrong with moderate use of violence, hard to die from a few hits on the head or even a stab with a knife unless someone is very unlucky. Sort of a soft tyranny that leads to excesses such as this.

edit, nothing

Innocentius

02-15-2008, 19:32

I can think of two reasons:

Mass media sensationalism. Every time this happens, it's blasted on the news for days afterward as self proclaimed experts pontificate on the cause. And then every other loser sees it and sees the attention the killer gets. I bet we'll soon have an indepth look at the recent past of the killer.

A society that's changed. One that increasingly finds fault with and blames society, less sacredness of life, and more toleration for suicidal/emo/goth/the world is against me feelings. I can't quite put my finger on it, so this part is really quite rough.

That's not to say these attacks didn't occur 40 years ago, they just happened much less often.

CR

That's basically saying that everything's the perpetrators fault, and that he/she seeks reasons to act out in an attention-seeking manner (attention they'll never experience since they'll be dead anyway). Bur aren't the perpetrators products of their time and society? What exactly do you mean by "finds fault with and blames society"? Is society all good and people who can't handle it bad guys?

I think it is because kids just aren't allowed to fend for theirselves today, the moment there is a conflict all sorts of gears are set in motion, talk, finding eachother you get it men raised by women. There is nothing wrong with moderate use of violence, hard to die from a few hits on the head or even a stab with a knife unless someone is very unlucky. Sort of a soft tyranny that leads to excesses such as this.

Interesting theory... can't say that it's very insightful though. Ah, heck, I'm not even touching that one, there's just too much behind it to explain what's wrong with that statement (study of gender etc).

Well I have no sympathy at all, if you can't handle it just open your wrists and bleed or look for a high building and see if newton was right, and make sure not to drop onto someone of make a mess on the floor. Zero sympathy for these people, your problem is just that, your problem.

And you don't think that way of thinking would make theses "emos" (as CR so fittingly named them) get even more pissed off with life? Yeah, your lack of sympathy will probably repay itself with more dead people - good thinking.

* Why do these shootings keep occurring?
* Can/should anything be done to lower the frequency of these atrocities?

1. Because society is society, systems are systems. Societies and systems create outcasts/extremists/rebels/opposers to the norms and so on. And in the cases where the shooters are mentally ill: because there will always be mentally ill people. We don't know if some guy named Aethelsten went postal with an axe in York in 846. Maybe he did, such events weren't written down to be remembered. It's difficult to tell if these school-shootings (or just random killing sprees) are a psychological product of modern society or not.

2. Yes and no.

Why, because the act is so self-evidently immoral? I can see that. If we want to get a handle on the problem, we need to look at causes, symptoms, ways to spot someone who's on the edge of going postal. I certainly think the anti-gun hysteria in schools isn't helping at all. You read about kids being suspended for drawing a gun or pointing their finger and going "bang"; I don't see how that helps anything.

According to you it is immoral, yes. Not to me. So morality is a very vague concept, according to me it exists only in one's mind, which renders it useless and even futile.

Rodion Romanovich

02-15-2008, 19:49

Why, because the act is so self-evidently immoral? I can see that. If we want to get a handle on the problem, we need to look at causes, symptoms, ways to spot someone who's on the edge of going postal. I certainly think the anti-gun hysteria in schools isn't helping at all. You read about kids being suspended for drawing a gun or pointing their finger and going "bang"; I don't see how that helps anything.
Answer to the why is IMO "yes", and to the rest, "I agree".

Husar

02-15-2008, 20:15

Another ugly thread.

I think I stated my opinion on this before and don't plan to repeat it.

Well, to make it short, sometimes it's actually a nutter and sometimes it's a beta-(fe)male who is pretty angry at all the alpha-(fe)males around her/him for sometimes valid reasons. It's nature's way to show alpha-(fe)males they're vulnerable as well.

ajaxfetish

02-15-2008, 22:14

That's basically saying that everything's the perpetrators fault, and that he/she seeks reasons to act out in an attention-seeking manner (attention they'll never experience since they'll be dead anyway). Bur aren't the perpetrators products of their time and society?
People are influenced by the society in which they live, but I don't buy the line that they're nothing more than products of society, automatons at the mercy of outside forces. Ultimately, yes, it's the perpetrator's fault. Saying something along the lines of 'society made him do it' is basically blaming the victim.

Ajax

Xiahou

02-16-2008, 00:11

Ok, this guy was mental right? The story says he stopped taking his meds and had been behaving "erratically". So how on earth did he get guns? The article makes it sound like he legally purchased them- diagnosed mental patients should not be buying guns. This looks to be the second time in recent memory that such a thing has happened with tragic results.

TevashSzat

02-16-2008, 04:16

Ah, but according to various advocates for people with mental health issues, they should be allowed to buy as many guns as they want because of the right to bear arms.

woad&fangs

02-16-2008, 04:31

Ah, but according to various advocates for people with mental health issues, they should be allowed to buy as many guns as they want because of the right to bear arms.
These people deserve to burn in the deepest circle of hell

etc, etc, etc,....

There was a long and colorful rant but I decided to save the mods some work.

Lemur

02-16-2008, 04:31

Ok, this guy was mental right? The story says he stopped taking his meds and had been behaving "erratically". So how on earth did he get guns?
Last I checked, the states that restrict gun purchases based on mental health all do so based on court-ordered treatment. So unless a person has been in contact with the legal system, there's no bar to buying a gun. People who go on anti-depressants or lithium or what-have-you are not barred anywhere from owning guns. So the dude behaved "erratically"? What does that mean, exactly? And so he went off his meds? Were the meds ordered by a court? If not, there's no issue.

The Virginia Tech shooter was a completely different matter. The kid had been sent into treatment from court; he should never have been allowed to purchase a firearm. That was a clear lapse of enforcement.

Xiahou

02-16-2008, 06:19

Last I checked, the states that restrict gun purchases based on mental health all do so based on court-ordered treatment. So unless a person has been in contact with the legal system, there's no bar to buying a gun. People who go on anti-depressants or lithium or what-have-you are not barred anywhere from owning guns. So the dude behaved "erratically"? What does that mean, exactly? And so he went off his meds? Were the meds ordered by a court? If not, there's no issue.

The Virginia Tech shooter was a completely different matter. The kid had been sent into treatment from court; he should never have been allowed to purchase a firearm. That was a clear lapse of enforcement.
Good points. We've not heard if this shooter's condition ever landed him in the courts. :bow:

Beirut

02-16-2008, 13:54

There should be a law that anytime this happens, the media must forever preface the shooter's name with "The pathetic impotent loser known as... "

Who knows, might even dissuade someone.

Veho Nex

02-17-2008, 05:58

colt 45's should be standard issue to college students when theyre in class.

Tribesman

02-17-2008, 10:39

colt 45's should be standard issue to college students when theyre in class.
No a better gun should be given , then again if they all had guns in class would it lead to more or less shootings .
Surely 4 school shootings in one week is sufficient under existing laws .
But at least they had some variety , one university , one tech college , one high school and one junior high ,...damn get them youngsters to work , they missed out on doing an elementary school shooting ....oh well maybe next week eh .

Rodion Romanovich

02-17-2008, 11:09

colt 45's should be standard issue to college students when theyre in class.
Yeah, and 50 bullets so they have enough ammunition to kill all the maniacs that are after them and trying to kill us all :balloon2:

Husar

02-17-2008, 14:18

Also respwn points automatic ammunition dispensers so they can get more once the deathmatch attack of the evil killers has started.

On the plus side, that makes the job of army recruiters easier.

Veho Nex

02-17-2008, 23:40

No one colt 45. with one round

Thats all you need, we dont need anymore major school shootings. If I was there just bam headshot!! then I'd be like "Yeh, I'm that good..."

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-18-2008, 07:22

If the media was restricted to saying "and in other news, there was a school shooting today in _______. Check to make sure your kids are safe if you're in that region. And now to Bob with the weather..." it would probably get rid of most of the attention-seeking murderers.

discovery1

02-18-2008, 08:27

Hmm, turns out a friend of mine had a friend who was there when the gunner attacked. Luckily he's ok.

And an excellent analysis of the situation Lemur.

Tachikaze

02-21-2008, 06:26

I thought that "i hate mondays" girl was the one who started the school shooting craze ? (documentary on BBC said so :P)
I was talking with someone recently about the violent, often famous, events that have happened around me here in San Diego. I was surprised the long list I came up with once I started.

I was a schoolmate of Brenda (I hate Mondays) Spencer. Her shooting spree happened 5 minutes distance (by car) from my house. I saw the emergency vehicles from my school bus.

I was a friend and schoolmate of a girl who was picked up near my home when she ran out of gas and was murdered.

An Eagle Scout, who had gone to my junior high school, axe murdered his family, burned the house, and committed suicide, 3 minutes from my house.

One of my close friends was stabbed to death at a party, mistaken for his jerk brother. 1 minute from my house.

The same scenario happened to my cousin's friend and neighbor, though with a gunshot through the door as he answered it. 10 minutes from my house.

A multiple high school shooting happened a few years back in Santee, 10 minutes from my house.

In the same year, another multiple shooting at San Miguel High School, 15 minutes from my house.
(Edit: it was the same month and the school's name is Granite Hills).

Many years ago a man walked into a McDonald's in San Ysidro and shot a bunch of people, then himself. 25 minutes from my home.

Before I'm accused by you guys, I did none of these. My city is known for its relatively low crime rate, especially the neightborhood I grew up in. But headline-making murders are a regular occurrance here.

The US has far, far more multiple shootings and peacetime rampages than any other nation on Earth, in fact, more than all of them combined, I'd say. I put this in the long "negative" column when people ask me if I love the US. I'd say there's something fundamentally wrong with this country, wouldn't you?

Strike For The South

02-21-2008, 06:42

Perhaps. Why do our people seem to partake in this sort of senless murder? I dont know. Maybe it is the way our young men are raised to be stoic emotionless men which cuases much more problems than just these shootings. The acceptence of violence as a regular an occurnce. A gnereal detachment from the sancatity/gift that is human life. Personally I blame the lack of socialzation. In the last 50 years actually going out and talking to people has been severly diminshed and now people seem to lack simple social skills and even worse they are ridculed for it. We just need to sit and talk things will change oh how they will chNGE.

Fragony

02-21-2008, 08:10

The US has far, far more multiple shootings and peacetime rampages than any other nation on Earth

Well it's also somewhat bigger :idea2:

Abokasee

02-21-2008, 09:22

Well it's also somewhat bigger :idea2:

Russia and canada are is some what bigger but how often do they get school shootings?, Russia makes the dam AK47 you'd think they'd have more (Any russians to confirm this please?), but of course they under yuris mind control!

WARNING: Very Dodgy joke under spoiler!
I wonder in africa do the victims parents recieve a letter say: Your subscription to the school has expired as your child is no longer a valid candidate

Beirut

02-21-2008, 12:56

Russia and canada are is some what bigger but how often do they get school shootings?

We are bigger, smaller population thank God, but we do have our share of school shootings. Toronto is turning into LA and Vancouver has a serious gun problem as well.

We need some serious law & order happening.

LittleGrizzly

02-21-2008, 14:37

In the UK our population is roughly a 1/5 of USA's and iirc we haven't had a school shooting here for years!

Last one i remember was a good 3-5 years ago somewhere up in scotland and it was some middle aged guy rather than a student.

so this leads me to a question, rather than a statement, is it the availability of guns that is the problem ? so if UK had as many guns we'd have roughly a school shooting for every 5 you have.

Or is there something different about US kids/students to uk kids/students ?
we have pretty much the same culture, watch the same movies play the same games listen to the same music, and even most of your tv makes it over here.

If we think about various factors that lead to people doing these kind of things, low self esteem, bullied, upbringing, potential future life and access to guns.

In the UK we have plenty of people who are bullied have low self esteem and think thier futureless, i can only guess upbringings would be similar so is it just the access to guns which is the cause of all the school shootings in USA or is there some other US only factor i have missed ?

Crazed Rabbit

02-21-2008, 15:43

Beirut

02-21-2008, 15:51

...so is it just the access to guns which is the cause of all the school shootings in USA or is there some other US only factor i have missed ?

Easy access to guns doesn't help, but there are a myriad of cultural factors involved as well, including, of course, the gun culture itself.

Life has become too crowded, too fast, too focussed on immediate gratification, and kids today, who are far more exposed to the real world than kids were in my day, see (more of) the violence and corruption and lies and deceit and profiteering going on all around them by the same people who are telling them to behave themselves. Kids simply don't trust anyone anymore. Worst of all is the endemic failure of people in authority to take responsibility for their actions. Kids see this very clearly. Mix this with overburdened parents and a general lack of discipline and respect for themselves and others and you have the fuse ready to light. Also, more people means more mental illness and less the means to deal with it adequately.

The easy availability of guns is simply the match to the fuse.

Be it the US or Canada or elsewhere, it's the same pattern I think.

Caius

02-21-2008, 16:04

Also respwn points automatic ammunition dispensers so they can get more once the deathmatch attack of the evil killers has started.

On the plus side, that makes the job of army recruiters easier.
Husar here make a joke of it. But it can be truth.

I mean, are people influenced by videogames?

The last year, I saw this documental "Bowling for Columbine". Michael Moore shows how are guns placed in society.

But, two months ago, I saw "The Videogame era", a serie of documentals about the life of the videogames, and they point out that the kids who shot in Columbine were playing teh old Doom.

Now, I invite you to discuss videogames and shootings.

woad&fangs

02-21-2008, 16:08

I think that Lemur, SFTS, and Beirut are all correct in their analysis of these shootings.

Pannonian

02-21-2008, 16:12

Note: California has more gun control than most of the United States.

Overall nationwide murder and violent crime are dropping.

In Britain, as I understand, the opposite is happening.

Well done on winning your debate on gun control CR, but please don't use Britain as a data point proving your argument. In Britain, gun-related crime is fairly insignificant, certainly where bystanders or others who don't own guns are concerned. There is some gun crime between gangs, but we don't really care about that as long as it doesn't spill over. The real hardcore who get their hardware illegally know where the profits and safety margins are, and they don't involve guns, except when fighting for turf.

LittleGrizzly

02-21-2008, 16:22

Note: California has more gun control than most of the United States.

Overall nationwide murder and violent crime are dropping.

In Britain, as I understand, the opposite is happening.

I think Tachi is far off in his claim the US has more shootings than the rest of the world combined.

50 years ago in the US, High school kids would bring guns to school to go hunting afterwards, have the school hold them during the school day.

It's not gun availability. It's society, and I think the best remarks on it were in the first page of this thread.

I don't disagree with most of this but what i am paying paticular attention to in this topic is school shootings, even if you were to call the equivilent in the UK stabbings we still don't have kids go into school and try and knife a bunch of people before taking thier own life, we tend to have individual students stabbed (mostly outside of school) but no-one goes in and just does some random killing.

Thats is why i ask what is the reason for this ? all i can think of is the availability to guns and reasons linked to this, we don't tend to have serial killer teens who go into thier school (anywhere near as much even considering population difference, i can't actually think of one of the top of my head)

Now we have teens commit violent crime, stab kids outside school and rarely inside school, they are perhaps of a similar personality to the kids who stab other kids over here, so what is the difference apart from the guns ? (im not putting it down to the guns but i am asking what is the difference if its not the guns then)

None of your points actually address this... yes crime may be rising in UK and dropping in US but US still is the one with problem, society is pretty much the same in UK or US but the US is still the one with the problem.

California's extra gun control doesn't mean too much in the case of school shootings (as i guess the students werent criminals before the shooting and they probably had thier parents guns ? though cr's comment on kids taking guns in makes me wonder where they thier guns) besides even if California had a total ban on guns it'd be alot easier to smuggle across C's state border than get them into the UK

50 years ago in the US, High school kids would bring guns to school to go hunting afterwards, have the school hold them during the school day.

This would make it seem that gun availability hasn't increased but maybe society has changed since then, but the UK has changed with the US an the UK doesn't have these problems, so still i am looking for the difference apart from guns as to why US has this problem and UK doesn't, all your point states is that you didn't have the problem before.

Thats all well and good but i am trying to figure out why US has this problem but not the UK.

think Tachi is far off in his claim the US has more shootings than the rest of the world combined.

If were talking specifically school shootings i would say its a pretty rare event in europe, not sure of other continents.

Easy access to guns doesn't help, but there are a myriad of cultural factors involved as well, including, of course, the gun culture itself.

Of course but the UK is subject to all these factors, except the gun one.

Life has become too crowded, too fast, too focussed on immediate gratification, and kids today, who are far more exposed to the real world than kids were in my day, see (more of) the violence and corruption and lies and deceit and profiteering going on all around them by the same people who are telling them to behave themselves. Kids simply don't trust anyone anymore. Worst of all is the endemic failure of people in authority to take responsibility for their actions. Kids see this very clearly. Mix this with overburdened parents and a general lack of discipline and respect for themselves and others and you have the fuse ready to light. Also, more people means more mental illness and less the means to deal with it adequately.

The easy availability of guns is simply the match to the fuse.

So if we have all these problems which create the fuse (and the bomb for sake of this analogy) In US and UK ect. surely it is best to remove the availability of matches as that is the difference between UK and US less matches.

Does that mean Beirut that you think the reason for school shootings in US and not UK is guns ?

Beirut

02-21-2008, 16:57

Does that mean Beirut that you think the reason for school shootings in US and not UK is guns ?

Guns are part of the equation. You can't shoot someone without a gun.

Guns are not the problem, but they are certainly part of the problem. You can't have a kid bring a high-capacity semi-automatic handgun to school and say that gun itself is not a problem. But violence does not require a gun, a gun simply makes violence easier, certainly if one is intent on doing violence to many people quickly.

There are many schools that have problems with violence that does not involve guns. Bullying, beatings, sexual assaults, these things happen all too often at schools everywhere. Violence is violence. The difference is gun violence changes it from one against one, or many against one, to one against many. Also, of course, there are fatalities involved. But that one person dies and another suffers physical and/or emotional scars from other sorts of violence can be a moot point to the person who has been hurt and continues to suffer, possibly for years.

Fragony

02-21-2008, 17:11

There are many schools that have problems with violence that does not involve guns. Bullying, beatings, sexual assaults, these things happen all too often at schools everywhere. Violence is violence.

Was trying to get at that earlier because I believe the way we handle that leads to excesses such as these. We just have to let that 'happen', it will be there anyway for the rest of their lifes, but that rather innocent social behaviour is too much repressed, kids will be kids so let them be it. Saying in Holland, a cornered cat makes odd jumps.

Veho Nex

02-21-2008, 17:12

Beirut

02-21-2008, 17:26

Beirut

02-21-2008, 18:30

Xiahou

02-21-2008, 18:35

The end is nigh. Legalized handgun carry at school.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

Absolutely, without question, one of the most idiotic, asinine, uncivilized, backwards, brick-headed, blisteringly stupid things in existence.
The funny thing about your over-reaction is that this isn't a new regulation- it's been allowed for some time and the kids* haven't been blowing each other away. It's almost as though normal, law-abiding citizens don't become criminals and go on killing sprees just because they carry guns- weird, I know.

*I know I said "kids" but these are adults- it's worth pointing out that the school in question is a University.

The question in my mind is: What's so "idiotic, asinine, uncivilized, backwards, brick-headed, blisteringly stupid" about it?

edit:
It's interesting to see that, according to their graphic, many other states do allow or are considering allowing it as well. They say Utah is the only state to allow it at all Universities, but I'd challenge them to point out the law where it's illegal in Pennsylvania. Concealed weapons licenses in PA have legal preemption over all municipal/local laws within the state and the only restrictions on the license are for federal property, courthouses, and k-12 schools. :shrug:

Tachikaze

02-21-2008, 18:59

This argument about guns in school is too old to revisit for me, but I back what Beirut has said.

On the question of how widespread mass shootings are in US schools, why don't we have a challenge? Research how many shooting sprees have happened in the US and the rest of the world.

Here are the lists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings#Notable_Shootings

Notice something?

By the way, there are five in the first half of February of this year, all in the US.

Veho Nex

02-21-2008, 19:01

Brilliant, Utah knows what its dong. I agree with it entirely. Beirut taking away guns only keeps the 'Victims' from having a fighting chance. If you were in a room with 999 other people, some guy walks on stage and whips out a gun. Every one in the room other than you is unarmed would you be that thousandth and final way to prevent the masacare? and imagine equiping all those students with pistols then even if you still believed that you couldnt fire the round, one of the other 999 students would. Guns don't cause school shootings, they atribute to the shooting part, but that could all be prevented by giving all the other students guns. I mean if some guy wants to go on a killing spree but he knows every one around him carries a gun, he will get one two or three shots off before he drops, thats alot better, in my opinion, than 30shots and on his last bullet offing himself.

Rodion Romanovich

02-21-2008, 19:11

Everyone won't have a gun, or his/her gun with him/her, or out of the holster etc. etc. If you move in with an SMG into a classroom where they're teaching arithmetic, I think you'll get a bodycount larger than what a 1st grader can count to just by the element of surprise, even if everybody "has" a revolver. So, equip all with SMGs, you may say. Good idea, then the school shooter comes with a machinegun or home-made explosives, and you're back where you started... or in an even worse position.

Fragony

02-21-2008, 19:18

I mean if some guy wants to go on a killing spree but he knows every one around him carries a gun, he will get one two or three shots off before he drops

Yep. And let's look at the most gun-hungry countries, like switzerland for example, what a terrible place with these mountains and fresh air and sadly the swiss. If it is a cultural thing in america, would banning guns prevent them from grabbing mommy's kitchen knife, good luck banning that one and enjoy a good meal. What is the problem if it is just laying there, if you ever need it it is because you need it. If you trust someone enough to allow him to have a knife then why not a gun?

Tachikaze

02-21-2008, 19:23

Well it's also somewhat bigger :idea2:

5% of the world's population, 70% of the world's school shootings.

Ironside

02-21-2008, 19:29

But!!! The people who go to shoot people have ways of getting guns. So how do you solve a problem when Person A has a gun and you don't? Person B has to be owning a gun to. Like My da always said

And that summarise the problematic part of the American gun culture IMO. The one were "everyone" with a gun finds the need to defend themself with guns against "evil" people.
But that's more gun violence than school shootings.

I think you can find it that the school shootings works more as an outward suecide, while I guess that type of people normally focus it inwards.

Mixing together some things I've red, I'm simply going to throw out a theory:

The pressure Lemur mentioned together with the feel that everyone, including you, can succeed the American dream style, creates a conflict when the darker parts of reality hits. This then creates the feeling that it's the world/school that has the "blame" (as because you can succeed, it has to be the people around you that makes you fail) instead of you/your tormentors (that I guess is the common case).

Xiahou

02-21-2008, 19:39

5% of the world's population, 70% of the world's school shootings.That's baloney and you've provided no evidence to support that. Besides being unauthoritative, your Wiki link only lists what it calls "notable" shootings.

Further, your initial claim was "The US has far, far more multiple shootings and peacetime rampages than any other nation on Earth, in fact, more than all of them combined"- that doesn't even pass the smell test.

Rodion Romanovich

02-21-2008, 19:47

5% of the world's population, 70% of the world's school shootings.
But if we count away the third world and moderately industrialized countries, what do we get then? Third world should be counted out because some of them have wars as counterpart to school shootings, and in moderately industrialized countries the school shooter types can't afford a gun (edit: didn't some guy in Russia a while ago run inside a school with a knife and kill 5, for example?). How much worse is the US than say the rest of the western world, including Western Europe, North America and the richest South East Asian countries? That would be a more interesting piece of statistics, I think. Even more interesting would be the total number of murders with all types of weapons compared between these regions, since the choice between say shooting a few, running over a few with a car, or stabbing some may also be cultural, and frankly unless you're trying to make a point in a gun control debate it's not interesting what weapon the murderer had, but rather the murder frequencies etc. But that too is statistics which shouldn't be overrated. The best would be to simply measure mental well-being, i.e. some kind of "potential for becoming a school shooter" measurements, but as usual with the most interesting measurements can't be made in scientifically certain ways, but belong mostly to the field of philosophy.

I think that even though not thoroughly statistically supported, the whole idea of the combo of simultaneously raising people's goals and lowering their capability of achieving them so the gap between these increases, is a quite accurate theory on what causes these things, and how to prevent them. As mentioned, guns aren't the entire explanation, although in a country where you can hardly get hold of a gun, a killer too has problems getting them as an advantage, but with the disadvantage that you can't easily get a gun for hobbies and sports.

Fragony

02-21-2008, 19:55

That's a lot, but what about guns

Veho Nex

02-21-2008, 20:23

The pressure Lemur mentioned together with the feel that everyone, including you, can succeed the American dream style, creates a conflict when the darker parts of reality hits. This then creates the feeling that it's the world/school that has the "blame" (as because you can succeed, it has to be the people around you that makes you fail) instead of you/your tormentors (that I guess is the common case).

Maybe every american should go what I went through. I hit the harsh reality of the american populace about 7 years ago. My mom 'Kidnapped' my siblings and I we went from homeless shelter to homeless shelter for a good 8 months. Twas the worst time of my life. Then my dad picked up his end, brought us back and I've been living the 'american dream' on a budget ever since. The problem is people who do lay the blame on every one else. Blame yourself for your screw ups and you will be a happier person. My favorite historical figure said

"Success is only measured by how high you bounce when you hit rock bottom"

I live by that, if people learned from their mistakes then they'd never want to kill again, they would be to busy actually living instead of being emo Sons A *female dogs*. To succeed by killing, makes no sense. To succeed by failure does.

Tachikaze

02-21-2008, 21:25

That's baloney and you've provided no evidence to support that. Besides being unauthoritative, your Wiki link only lists what it calls "notable" shootings.

Further, your initial claim was "The US has far, far more multiple shootings and peacetime rampages than any other nation on Earth, in fact, more than all of them combined"- that doesn't even pass the smell test.
Why don't you compile a list of "non-notable" shootings and see if the ratio changes.

As far as your second comment about your olfactory ability, I have been watching the news since the late '60s and shootings such as these come from the US far more often than anywhere else. Are there incidents in parts of the world that don't get reported? Perhaps, but that's just speculation. The numbers are so unbalanced towards the US, that it would take an awful lot of secrecy to raise the rest of the world figures up to put the US in the normal range.

Frankly, I think five "notable" school shootings in two weeks, and that anyone would propose arming students in defense, are the signs of a psychotic nation that needs a drastic changes.

Xiahou

02-21-2008, 21:43

Why don't you compile a list of "non-notable" shootings and see if the ratio changes.What's the saying? "Link or it didn't happen." If you can't back up your arguments, don't ask me to do it for you.

As far as your second comment about your olfactory ability, I have been watching the news since the late '60s and shootings such as these come from the US far more often than anywhere else. Are there incidents in parts of the world that don't get reported? Perhaps, but that's just speculation. The numbers are so unbalanced towards the US, that it would take an awful lot of secrecy to raise the rest of the world figures up to put the US in the normal range.Do you remember what country you live in? And you're actually surprised that most US news would be US centric? Just because you didn't hear about it on TV or in the US papers doesn't mean there weren't homicidal shooting sprees elsewhere. To use anecdotal US media reports to draw the definitive conclusion that there are more multiple shooting incidents in the US than the rest of the world combined really strikes me as unwise.

Frankly, I think five "notable" school shootings in two weeks, and that anyone would propose arming students in defense, are the signs of a psychotic nation that needs a drastic changes."Notable" is a subjective word and therefore largely meaningless if you're trying to talk about shooting statistics in general. But, I'm not at all surprised you think the nation you live in is psychotic. ~:handball:

woad&fangs

02-21-2008, 21:43

Frankly, I think five "notable" school shootings in two weeks, and that anyone would propose arming students in defense, are the signs of a psychotic nation that needs a drastic changes.

5? I've only heard of the NIU shooting recently. Of course, I get the majority of my news from the .Org so that number might be correct. These things do seem to go in spurts. Idiot 1 sees idiot 2's 24/7 news coverage and decides that he wants that too.

Also, as an avid hunter and a US teenager I would like to say that arming students, and for that matter teachers, is a stupid idea.

Lemur

02-21-2008, 21:51

Also, as an avid hunter and a US teenager I would like to say that arming students, and for that matter teachers, is a stupid idea.
I don't know about that. Let's take it as a given that we're going to continue to be an armed society -- there's no realistic way that's going to change anytime soon. Let's also take it as a given that crazy people will be able to get their hands on guns.

Allowing some students and teachers to carry concealed would be one of the only practical ways to stop/slow down a school shooter. Once a shooter is engaged by another armed person, their focus shifts to that person exclusively. If nothing else, this allows a lot of people to get away.

I'm not so convinced this is a bad idea.

Xiahou, do you have any evidence that the frequency of school shootings in the U.S.A. is not anomalous?

woad&fangs

02-21-2008, 21:59

I don't know about that. Let's take it as a given that we're going to continue to be an armed society -- there's no realistic way that's going to change anytime soon. Let's also take it as a given that crazy people will be able to get their hands on guns.

Allowing some students and teachers to carry concealed would be one of the only practical ways to stop/slow down a school shooter. Once a shooter is engaged by another armed person, their focus shifts to that person exclusively. If nothing else, this allows a lot of people to get away.

I'm not so convinced this is a bad idea.

How exactly would we be able to decide which of the "some" get to have concealed weapons at school?

I know that I could pass any bs test they put together, but I also know that I'm not a person that you would want to have a gun at school.

Lemur

02-21-2008, 22:03

How exactly would we be able to decide which of the "some" get to have concealed weapons at school?
Those who had the wherewithal to apply for, get screened for, and receive a concealed carry permit. Safe to say, based on the usage levels among the rest of the population where this is permitted, that the final number would be well below 50%.

I wasn't picturing anything complicated ...

ICantSpellDawg

02-21-2008, 22:07

Why don't you compile a list of "non-notable" shootings and see if the ratio changes.

As far as your second comment about your olfactory ability, I have been watching the news since the late '60s and shootings such as these come from the US far more often than anywhere else. Are there incidents in parts of the world that don't get reported? Perhaps, but that's just speculation. The numbers are so unbalanced towards the US, that it would take an awful lot of secrecy to raise the rest of the world figures up to put the US in the normal range.

Frankly, I think five "notable" school shootings in two weeks, and that anyone would propose arming students in defense, are the signs of a psychotic nation that needs a drastic changes.

How about this, we try arming everyone first, then if it doesn't work, we ammend the constitution to ban guns everywhere? What say you?

It isn't nuclear warfare

ICantSpellDawg

02-21-2008, 22:08

Those who had the wherewithal to apply for, get screened for, and receive a concealed carry permit. Safe to say, based on the usage levels among the rest of the population where this is permitted, that the final number would be well below 50%.

I wasn't picturing anything complicated ...

I was just thinking about getting a concealed permit and then I realized that I live in NY.

Lemur

02-21-2008, 22:09

Heh, everything's illegal in New York. Body armor is illegal, concealed carry is illegal, pepper spray is illegal ... it just goes on and on. I figure they would make Ginsu knives and kung-fu illegal if they could figure out how to enforce it.

Xiahou

02-21-2008, 22:14

Xiahou, do you have any evidence that the frequency of school shootings in the U.S.A. is not anomalous?No- I haven't even looked. It's not my argument to make. I think it's quite possible that the US has more school shootings than many other nations- we have more shootings in general than many other nations. However, if someone wants to make an outlandish sounding claim that we have more than the rest of the world with its 6 billion+ people combined, I expect something more than anecdotes to back the claim up.

Once a shooter is engaged by another armed person, their focus shifts to that person exclusively. If nothing else, this allows a lot of people to get away.I could also see a possible deterrent effect. Would-be shooters wouldn't know who's carrying a gun, they would just know that it's possible that any number of people are. If these sick whackos thought their 'blaze of glory' shooting spree is likely to get nipped in the bud by a classmate, they might be less likely to try it in the first place. It may not be a complete coincidence that so many shooting sprees seem to occur at places where people are typically disarmed- then again, maybe it is. :shrug:

Tachikaze

02-21-2008, 22:27

If you can't back up your arguments, don't ask me to do it for you.
You haven't backed up anything. You have provided no evidence that my arguments are wrong. If you don't like my data, provide better.

Beirut

02-22-2008, 00:47

The funny thing about your over-reaction is that this isn't a new regulation- it's been allowed for some time and the kids* haven't been blowing each other away.

Yeah, give A lefty Canadian too much coffee and tell him kids are carrying handguns to school and watch the language flow, eh? :hippie:

But then again, I still think it`s an insanely and outrageously stupid thing to do.

The question in my mind is: What's so "idiotic, asinine, uncivilized, backwards, brick-headed, blisteringly stupid" about it?

(Breathe in...)

School is for learning. It is for the dissemination and consumption of knowledge. Not only technical, but because of the social environment, it teaches people how to interact with other people, often people of different social and economic backgrounds. School is a melting pot and building ground for future generations. It is the genesis of social movements. It is all about the betterment of the next generation and of society as a whole. This isn`t just a lefty bong song, it`s fact.

Having young people carrying handguns into this environment is utterly anathema to what the environment itself is meant to foster. It`s like having a KKK church, or a grocery store full of poisonous food. Having someone carrying a handgun in a place of learning is sending the idea that hostility and danger and the ability of each person to kill another person at will are on the same social level as learning and social interaction. If you want to carry a gun at school, go to West Point of a police college. But to have handguns on the belts and in the bags of the students and teachers is a horrible admission of failure and impotence in the face of the worst aspects of society. If security is needed, there are others ways to deal with it. Guns in school is not an option.

(Exhale...)

ICantSpellDawg

02-22-2008, 01:56

You haven't backed up anything. You have provided no evidence that my arguments are wrong. If you don't like my data, provide better.
Faulty. You made a claim that was not backed up by facts. Until it is backed up by facts it is just rhetoric.

If you wish it to be considered as fact, provide evidence of your claim, otherwise it is just an outlandish and unbelievable statement.

The burden of proof lies with you.

ICantSpellDawg

02-22-2008, 01:59

We would become a much more polite society if gun laws were less restrictive in public places. The lack of guns in the public sector is arguably having a corrosive effect on respectful interpersonal relationships.

In an ironic twist, nuclear weapons may have made the world a safer place. Even the biggest bully country would have to tread lightly around the smallest nerd country.

Tachikaze

02-22-2008, 02:25

We would become a much more polite society if gun laws were less restrictive in public places. The lack of guns in the public sector is arguably having a corrosive effect on respectful interpersonal relationships.
The Japanese might argue with that.

...or are you joking.

Lemur

02-22-2008, 05:08

Since neither Tachikaze nor Xiahou are in the mood to inject empirical evidence into this scuffle, I came up with the following:

School shootings from around the world since 1996. (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/17/america/NA-GEN-US-Virginia-Tech-Global-Shootings.php) Includes the Chechen slaughter in the Beslan school, which doesn't really fit the bill, but otherwise it rounds up everything I've ever heard of, including a few cases I hadn't.

"American-style" school shooting in India. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3987595&page=1) Too recent for the AP article, but it certainly fits the "getting back at bullies" pattern we see in the States.

Wikipedia's exhaustive list of school-related attacks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks)

Just doing a quick-and-dirty hand-count of the violence listed on Wiki, making no attempt to sort out the nature of the events of qualify them in any way, I tally 104 events in U.S. schools, as opposed to 43 events in non-U.S. schools. Feel free to look at the data and come up with your own analysis, but on the face of it, advantage Tachikaze.

Xiahou

02-22-2008, 07:41

Wikipedia's exhaustive list of school-related attacks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks)

Just doing a quick-and-dirty hand-count of the violence listed on Wiki, making no attempt to sort out the nature of the events of qualify them in any way, I tally 104 events in U.S. schools, as opposed to 43 events in non-U.S. schools. Feel free to look at the data and come up with your own analysis, but on the face of it, advantage Tachikaze.It makes no claims of being exhaustive and even if it did, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. With just a cursory glance at your other links, I almost immediately found one not listed in wiki.

There is, perhaps, something worthwhile in the article's "external links"...
Violence in school: A Few Orientations for a Worldwide Scientific Debate (http://www.obsviolence.com/french/documentation/Debarbieux%20-%20IJVS%2001%20-%20May%202006%20-%20Gb.pdf)
There have been fifteen massacres causing 177 deaths in schools since 1964, including five in the USA.From what I can gather, the study does not include Universities and the data stops with 2005. It would seem to suggest that a large proportion do occur in the US(that probably surprises no one)- but more than everywhere else in the world combined? :no:
We've still seen nothing more than anecdotes to make that case. Honestly, I don't really think it can be proven definitively. Any papers I've googled up always have disclaimers about their methodology, ect or are just anecdotal. But again, if you or Tachikaze can actually find real statistics or a serious study on the issue to support his assertion, I'd love to see it.

When looking through the wiki page, I did find something else worth drawing attention to as well:
Appalachian School of Law shooting. 43-year-old Appalachian School of Law student Peter Odighizuwa shot and killed the Law School Dean, a professor, and another student; three others were wounded. The incident was ended when two students with guns subdued the shooter. :shrug:

Crazed Rabbit

02-22-2008, 09:16

Absolutely, without question, one of the most idiotic, asinine, uncivilized, backwards, brick-headed, blisteringly stupid things in existence.

Your reaction? Why, yes it is.

It's already perfectly legal to carry a concealed weapon on Universities in Washington state.

Now, try thinking about it before rejecting it. People in the majority of states in the US can already get licenses to carry concealed pistols. Now what point is there in preventing those people, licensed to carry in the state, from carrying on universities? And if those people are students, why should they not be able to carry it on universities?

You tell me, Beirut - what changes in a person when they step over that invisible boundary of university property?

Oh, no, wait it's simple - you don't think about it, you just dismiss it out of hand.

I don't see why a learning environment must enforce defenselessness. Why, in a place of learning, should people harbor fantasies about their safety? Do you know how many women are assaulted at colleges every year? I think being able to being able to defend yourself is part of a functional society. Carrying a gun puts people on a roughly equal plane and puts persuasion over force. You speak of hostility - carrying a gun has nothing to do with hostility.

You speak of danger - and that's where you are most horribly mistaken.

Tell me, Beirut, did the no gun policy help at VT or NIU? Gee, I guess banning guns does absolutely nothing to reduce danger.

You talk of an ability of every person to kill every as being inherently bad. How is that worse than everyone but the attacker being defenseless? You speak of equality as a bad thing.

I really find it hard to believe people can stop violence by banning tools for self defense from law abiding people. You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over again - insisting on disarmed victims at school, and expecting a different result when a crazy person attacks.

Instead we get the absolute shut-minded, can't-even-discuss-this attitude that schools are magically different from the rest of human society.

And on the whole amount of school shootings thing - it seems to me the overall homicide rate is what matters more than what is really just anecdotes.

CR

Csargo

02-22-2008, 09:30

What happens when they miss?

Beirut

02-22-2008, 12:58

Well, you know, I think I may have to side with my esteemed colleagues who feel arming students is the way to go. Brothers, I have seen the light.

But a question, if a may; since the right to defend yourself exists at any age, after all, no one has to stand there and take a beating, much less a bullet, I need some advice on how to arm my 9 & 11 year-olds for school today.

Granted, there have been elementary school shootings, but my 9 year-old might not keep herself calm and collected enough to aim well, and most of the threats are of the bullying and beating sort, so I'm thinking of a blunt instrument. Do you think an ASP (extendable baton) would do? What about a mild pepper spray, say jalapeno instead of habanera based? Strong enough for defence, but not so powerful as to blind her fellow 4th graders if the stuff gets loose. Should I pack brass knuckles in her lunch box or sew them into a quick release pocket on her Sponge Bob t-shirt? I'm thinking a mild concussive injury or broken bone will suffice for elementary school self defence. (Mind you, a cutting wound is certainly advantageous.)

Next, my 11 year-old. She's in grade six and will be in grade seven next year. I'm thinking of either a .25 or a .380. Less kick on the .25 but a .380 is a much better weapon. Since high schools carry the greatest risk of shootings, I think there's an argument to be made for her being allowed to carry a handgun in seventh grade. At least when she's sixteen, old enough to drive and join the army, by all means she should carry a handgun in high school. But for now, I'm thinking of a good quality knife. A straight razor is cheap, has a good intimidation value, but lacks in combat ergonomics. A Cold Steel folding knife is an excellent choice, but most have serrations and they might get caught on the thick winter jackets here and not penetrate to the skin. So a fixed blade, about 4" is best I think. A tanto style blade would be good, that will penetrate the winter jacket of a fellow student nicely.

So, since we're arming our kids for school, and since shootings and violence do happen at the lower levels, and since self-defence is a right, what do my fellow members feel is the best blunt weapon for Grade 4 and below and the best combat knife for high school? Once the student is sixteen and we switch to handguns for grades 9, 10 and 11, should we stick to revolvers for practical reasons or go for high-capacity semi-autos? Should we skip edged weapons for all high school students and go straight to concealed carry? Should the Grade 9s be forced to use Glaser Safety Slugs? Can they get detention or extra homework for carrying armour piercing rounds or even FMJ bullets?

In case you disagree, my left wing Constitution burning, freedom hating friends, why on Earth should a Grade 9 student who is old enough to drive, marry, and join the Marines not be allowed to carry a handgun to high school? (Or at least an 18 year-old who has failed several times and is still in high school, I mean, he has to be allowed to carry a handgun in high school.) And please, keep to the facts, no emotional relevatism or whatever it is you Liberals call it.

Thanks.

ICantSpellDawg

02-22-2008, 15:24

Innocentius

02-22-2008, 15:31

Wow, this turned into another gun debate. Great. I am in no way pro guns, but blaming only them is pointless... even discussing them seems a little off to me, since it's rather clear that the weapons per se are not the problem. This thread even began with some rather intelligent comments on American society and culture.

Lemur

02-22-2008, 16:19

But again, if you or Tachikaze can actually find real statistics or a serious study on the issue to support his assertion, I'd love to see it.
Yeah, it's huge fun to poke around and find something, and bring it back for you to **** all over. Must be a very relaxing pastime for you as well, since, as you stated, you have no argument to make.

I'll get right on that, your worship.

LittleGrizzly

02-22-2008, 16:27

Firstly saying people should be allowed to take weapons into a school or even a universtiy just sounds insane to someone from the UK or more specifically, me.

Straw men. Now you are arguing for an annulment of an age limit? I'm not, nor is anyone else on this forum (other than yourself in jest).

but the criminals don't respect the laws no matter what age they are, so what happens when the young criminal enters the school and people are defenseless because of liberal's not wanting people to defend themselves ?

Guns are part of the equation. You can't shoot someone without a gun.

Guns are not the problem, but they are certainly part of the problem. You can't have a kid bring a high-capacity semi-automatic handgun to school and say that gun itself is not a problem. But violence does not require a gun, a gun simply makes violence easier, certainly if one is intent on doing violence to many people quickly.

There are many schools that have problems with violence that does not involve guns. Bullying, beatings, sexual assaults, these things happen all too often at schools everywhere. Violence is violence. The difference is gun violence changes it from one against one, or many against one, to one against many. Also, of course, there are fatalities involved. But that one person dies and another suffers physical and/or emotional scars from other sorts of violence can be a moot point to the person who has been hurt and continues to suffer, possibly for years.

I understand the gun is just a tool for carrying out whatever job you wish to do, but if one of the high school shooters lived in the UK he would not have a gun (or it is very very very unlikely but lets take the 999/1000 times as an example) everything leading up to getting the gun would be same, same amount of anger, pain, coldness (emotionally) and desperation.

The kid who then enters the school with a knife (you could say a few weapons chainsaw or a blowtorch or something similar but knifes are the common weapon (and realistic) here in UK) he would start his rampage and unless physically strong and/or combat trained with a knife probably a small group of students could take him down. Even if highly proficient with the knife anyone with a bit of space and a exit not blocked by the attacker could get away, but the kid with the gun even without much training can shoot people a decent distance away, and 2 people running opposite ways would force the knife wielder to choose a target and give chase, the gunman would simply stand there and pop both of them off.

I would also say the gun probably increases aggression aswell, as the person with the gun nows they have no match for a time at least.

So is it worth all these kids dying for us to have a publically available killing tool ? if so what does personal gun ownership have that is more important than childrens lives ?

If you trust someone enough to allow him to have a knife then why not a gun?

Because with a gun i could walk up to large (say 10) gang of people (about 20-30 feet away) and just start shooting and aslong as
a) im a half decent shot (just a shot to immobilise them will do i can kill them later)
b) none of the gang are superman and can cover the distance between us before i notice
c) i have a big enough clip (though even with very small clips i could turn and run while reloading)
I could pretty easily kill them all, now if i went up to the same group with a knife i would have to get up close and personal, the chances are unless these 10 people were very weak they would manage to stop me, maybe with 2 or 3 casaulties.

I could also see a possible deterrent effect. Would-be shooters wouldn't know who's carrying a gun, they would just know that it's possible that any number of people are. If these sick whackos thought their 'blaze of glory' shooting spree is likely to get nipped in the bud by a classmate,

most school shooters shoot themselves in the end so im sure potentially getting shot wouldn't put many/any off.

Carrying a gun puts people on a roughly equal plane I would say it simply changes it from (with no weapons) strength, speed, pain threshold and fighting skill (how well you fight) to speed, firing skill and to a lesser level pain threshold. Fighting skill is the equivilent of shooting skill so the main factor it would remove is strength, it still leaves the plane pretty uneqaul

You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over again - insisting on disarmed victims at school, and expecting a different result when a crazy person attacks.

I would say the definition of crazy is a society where so many crazy people can get thier hands on such an effective killing tool

Rodion Romanovich

02-22-2008, 16:57

Seems like nobody read my post on the previous page. If all school kids are armed with revolvers, the school shooters will likely bring SMGs. The relative balance will remain the same, but the absolute balance will shift towards more guns. Arming teachers could be a good idea though.

Fragony

02-22-2008, 17:09

Seems like nobody read my post on the previous page. If all school kids are armed with revolvers, the school shooters will likely bring SMGs.

Then we agree, don't be so sensitive about kids beating eachother up because someone could just bring a knife. So I say just let them fight a little that is normal.

LittleGrizzly

02-22-2008, 17:12

Crazed Rabbit

02-22-2008, 18:19

Straw men. Now you are arguing for an annulment of an age limit? I'm not, nor is anyone else on this forum (other than yourself in jest).

Actually, it's a different kind of logical fallacy:

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd") also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

When you want to talk, Beirut, and not bring logical fallacies into it, I'll be ready.

What happens when they miss?

They miss. I doubt people are going to be congregating around the shooter.

CR

Viking

02-22-2008, 19:03

Instead of arming every student, one could hire security guards..

Veho Nex

02-22-2008, 19:57

I did read it rodion but i agreed basically so the only comment i could have made is "I agree" so

"I agree"

the ideal situation is no weapons in schools and as the weapons get better (stick - sharp stick - knife - gun) the potential for 1 persons kills increase dramatically

So according to this theory we get rid of all weapons in school so the kid is going to go on a killing spree with just stick?? That doesnt work. you can give every kid a muzzle loader and if that shooter comes in with a gatling gun it still only takes on bullet. It doesnt matter what type of gun they have bullets are still bullets, and if you look at 90%(not based on statistics) of american youth or youth period they probably never fired a gun in their lives. We just give them one gun one bullet and as long as their lives depend on it they will fire that shot.

Crazed Rabbit

02-22-2008, 20:49

Instead of arming every student, one could hire security guards..

I want to make clear that I do not think anyone should be compelled to carry a gun. Only that the option should be there.

As for security - most campuses have their own police force. The problem is, as it has ever been, that they simply can't be everywhere at once. Even when the police - not just rent a cops - arrive fast, they're too late.

CR

Beirut

02-22-2008, 20:49

Straw men. Now you are arguing for an annulment of an age limit? I'm not, nor is anyone else on this forum (other than yourself in jest).

No strawman here, just a cowardly lion. :sunny:

If the age of consent is 18, and if an 18 year-old can carry a handgun at college, why can't an 18 year-old carry a handgun at high school?

If an 18 year-old can carry a handgun into high school, why can't younger students carry knives, and why is a student who is old enough to drive and join the army not allowed to carry a gun into high school?

What are the caliber, ammunition, and magazine capacity limitations on guns in school? Can a a student of legal age, be it high school or college, carry a Thompson-Center .308 Winchester single shot pistol with FMJ ammunition? Can the student carry any of a myriad of handguns that hold up to and more than 15 shots? May he carry extra magazines? And how many? And if not, why not? May he carry a cocked and locked single action semi-auto? If not, why not? Are snatch resistent holsters required? If not, why not? May he carry one one of the semi-auto variations of an Uzi or MAC-10 if in that state they are designated as handguns? If not, why not?

I've owned dozens of rifles, handguns and shotguns. I've shot every kind of gun there is. I earned my badges in competition shooting, and I've got twenty-years of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, and The American Handgunner rolling around in my rusty memory banks, so I'll be looking for realistic answers to these questions.

Thanks.

Crazed Rabbit

02-22-2008, 20:51

Beirut

02-22-2008, 20:54

I forgot.

May students with legal carry permits form collectives, meaning they are indentified, by a particular shirt or crest, while at school? If not, why not?

Beirut

02-22-2008, 20:56

Beirut- in nearly all states with licensed concealed weapon carrying, the minimum age is 21 years.

Also, a question - would you be against allowing teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry in high schools?

CR

Nearly. But I speak of the others that allow 18.

All my questions still stand.

No, teachers should not carry handguns.

Crazed Rabbit

02-22-2008, 21:13

Carrying in high schools:
No. I suppose you could call getting a HS degree a rite of passage. So no, HS students can't carry.

Pocketknives; yes. I think all students should be able to carry pocketknives.

I forgot.

May students with legal carry permits form collectives, meaning they are indentified, by a particular shirt or crest, while at school? If not, why not?

So, may groups of students who carry wear a certain t-shirt? I don't see why not. You'll find though, among people who carry concealed, there is a desire not to advertise that fact.

No, teachers should not carry handguns.

Do you mean that as part of a 'nobody should carry handguns' stance or teachers especially? If the former, I'd ask why teaching means you must give up your right to self defense at the location of high profile attacks, or why being around children means you can't be allowed to effectively defend yourself.

I also see no reason for regulations on what pistol one can carry, nor on how many magazines. Semi-auto uzis is stretching it, as they would be hard to conceal. And I know of no state that definse them as handguns. If you do, please share. If one could, I don't see why not - considering they fire pistol ammunition anyways, and wouldn't fire it much faster if they were small enough to conceal.

CR

Beirut

02-22-2008, 23:06

Carrying in high schools:
No. I suppose you could call getting a HS degree a rite of passage. So no, HS students can't carry.

But if a high school sudent is of legal age, why should an education in matters completely unrelated to weapons training be pertinent to carrying a weapon?

What about an 18 year-old with training who failed twice and is in the 10th grade? Why can't he carry a gun?

Where in the 2nd Amendment is the provision for a required minimum education? Do the states ask for one?

What about inner-city schools where minorities make up the majority of students. These people and schools are often subject to high crime levels. Shouldn't every 18 year-old student of an inner-city high school be allowed to carry a handgun? As minorities in these situations sometimes suffer a disproportionate amount of crime, shouldn't provisions be made to make it even easier for inner-city school with a high perccetage of minorities to allow for the carrying of handguns at school?

Pocketknives; yes. I think all students should be able to carry pocketknives.

Can we agree this means a 7th grade student may carry a folding knife with a 3" or 4" blade? And if a 4" folder is allowed, what about a 4" fixed blade siince there is no real difference? What about a Ka-Bar? What if the stats showed that less people were stabbed with large fixed blade knives than with smaller ones, would you say then that large fixed blade knives should be allowed in high school?

So, may groups of students who carry wear a certain t-shirt? I don't see why not. You'll find though, among people who carry concealed, there is a desire not to advertise that fact.

Many young people like to be indentified with a group. So you could have the Bumfart College 357s, and all the members could wear the team t-shirt and carry .357 Magnums. Perhaps you could have the Bumfart College .44s, and so on. Basically, you could have armed gangs now walking around school wearing their colours. What happens at school sporting events? Can the Bumfart College .44s sit next to the Brainburp College 9mms at the playoffs?

I don't know about you, but I would be extremelly nervous to be in the stands that day.

Do you mean that as part of a 'nobody should carry handguns' stance or teachers especially? If the former, I'd ask why teaching means you must give up your right to self defense at the location of high profile attacks, or why being around children means you can't be allowed to effectively defend yourself.

I would answer the same here as I did in a previous post, that a learning environment and the carrying of weapons simply do not go together unless one is attending a military or police college.

If a teacher is in fear of his/her life, the school has a responsibility to provide adequate protection.

I also see no reason for regulations on what pistol one can carry, nor on how many magazines.

So a student could carry a .308 caliber Thompson-Center handgun with FMJ ammunition, keeping in mind that this bullet could tear through almost a foot of solid wood and penetratre into adjoining rooms, even after it has passed through a person's body? And if you forbid the .308, what about the .223 Remington (the bullet fired by M-16s)? That bullet can also be fired in a handgun. And if you forbid the .223, what about "dedicated" handgun ammunition that has greater impact energy than the .223 and still overpenetrates, why would you allow that ammunition?

This would mean that any FMJ round is allowed even though over penetratration is a serious issue. And since we are talking about young people with high capacity semi-autos, the threat of rapid unaimed fire (spray & pray) is also a serious issue. Without any limits on magazine size or even the number of magazines, it is (very) possible that should students start firing, there could well be a veritable fusilade of undisciplined and over penetrating fire in a crowded environment.

Semi-auto uzis is stretching it, as they would be hard to conceal. And I know of no state that definse them as handguns. If you do, please share. If one could, I don't see why not - considering they fire pistol ammunition anyways, and wouldn't fire it much faster if they were small enough to conceal.

The Mini-Uzi and Micro-Uzi are very small and easy to conceal. This is a bit of an emotional point on my part, but I was curious if you or anyone else had a conceptual problem with young people carrying Uzis at school.

For my part, it is night and day without a hint of doubt; carrying handguns at school is insanity.

Xiahou

02-22-2008, 23:58

But if a high school sudent is of legal age, why should an education in matters completely unrelated to weapons training be pertinent to carrying a weapon?I can only speak with any degree of certainty about my own state, but I believe most that issue carry permits require you be 21 years of age. That rules out virtually all HS students, and having been 18, I think it's probably for the best. :yes:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-23-2008, 00:16

Pocketknives; yes. I think all students should be able to carry pocketknives.

Agreed. A penknife is a tool, not a weapon. I could do just as much damage with a pair of scissors as I could with a penknife.

Crazed Rabbit

02-23-2008, 00:30

I would answer the same here as I did in a previous post, that a learning environment and the carrying of weapons simply do not go together unless one is attending a military or police college.

If a teacher is in fear of his/her life, the school has a responsibility to provide adequate protection.

But you wouldn't let any cops be around the school, since their being armed doesn't go with that environment?

I really don't see how you can logically state a university is incompatible with self defense.

So a student could carry a .308 caliber Thompson-Center handgun with FMJ ammunition, keeping in mind that this bullet could tear through almost a foot of solid wood and penetratre into adjoining rooms, even after it has passed through a person's body? And if you forbid the .308, what about the .223 Remington (the bullet fired by M-16s)? That bullet can also be fired in a handgun. And if you forbid the .223, what about "dedicated" handgun ammunition that has greater impact energy than the .223 and still overpenetrates, why would you allow that ammunition?

Show me one person who uses either a .308 or .223 pistol for everyday carry. Until then, this is irrelevant.

This would mean that any FMJ round is allowed even though over penetratration is a serious issue. And since we are talking about young people with high capacity semi-autos, the threat of rapid unaimed fire (spray & pray) is also a serious issue. Without any limits on magazine size or even the number of magazines, it is (very) possible that should students start firing, there could well be a veritable fusilade of undisciplined and over penetrating fire in a crowded environment.

Like I said before, I doubt the area around the shooter, or behind them (since the new MO seems to be walking into a classroom from the hallway and opening fire on the seated students), would be crowded, and that such a scenario you predict would be likely.

I don't know about you, but I would be extremelly nervous to be in the stands that day.

I'm not going to debate such nonsense, just like I won't argue whether the fashions on alpha-centuri are objectifying females.

For my part, it is night and day without a hint of doubt; carrying handguns at school is insanity.

Fine, but don't try to force your illogical obstinance on the rest of us.

CR

Beirut

02-23-2008, 01:56

But you wouldn't let any cops be around the school, since their being armed doesn't go with that environment?

If I made a statement like that you'd head butt me into next week.

I really don't see how you can logically state a university is incompatible with self defense.

It's not that a university is incompatible with self-defense, have all the karate classes you want, but having the students carrying handguns is an unacceptable extreme.

Show me one person who uses either a .308 or .223 pistol for everyday carry. Until then, this is irrelevant.

It is not an elephant. First off, since it's concealed carry, neither of us can know if either a .223 or .308 is being carried. That is the point. From a technical perspective, weapons can be, and will be, carried that are unsuitable to the environment and perceived tactical situation and no one will know until it is far too late.

I await your views on the finer technical points of carrying and discharging a weapon in a crowded environment. Since you eschew the emotional for the rational, I'm sure your postings on the matter will carry great relevance.

Like I said before, I doubt the area around the shooter, or behind them (since the new MO seems to be walking into a classroom from the hallway and opening fire on the seated students), would be crowded, and that such a scenario you predict would be likely.

In a crowded university, people are everywhere. You can't say that as soon as gunfire erupts there won't be anyone around because if that were true no one would be killed during a school shooting.

I'm not going to debate such nonsense, just like I won't argue whether the fashions on alpha-centuri are objectifying females.

I won't pick and choose. You give me a point and I will consider it.

My point is that having armed students can lead to groups of armed students organizing, and that can have terrible reprecussions. Universities are hotbeds of political and social activism, it is unrealistic to think that the pervasive carrying of weapons by young emotional people will not eventually interact with those other activities.

If you think that is not an issue, that is your choice.

Fine, but don't try to force your illogical obstinance on the rest of us.

I can't see that I'm forcing my illogical obstinance on anyone any more than you are. We are partners in this here particular crime. ~:yin-yang:

Strike For The South

02-23-2008, 02:50

Beirut

02-23-2008, 03:36

if you think this has to do with guns you are wrong. We live in the USA we shouldnt have to get to the point were our educaters are armed to protect themsleves from there studnets. We have to figure out the why. Anything else is knee jerk reactionary measure that will backfire

Agreed. Guns are neither the root of the problem nor are they the answer. They are, however, part of the problem.

A (huge) problem I see with having guns in school (besides all the other problems) is that some of the people who view carrying guns in school as the answer are either disregarding the technical aspects of the situation because they are unable to discuss them adequately, or are unwilling to do so because they feel discussing technicalities will lead to limitations on types of weapons and that would be an affront to their personal liberties.

ICantSpellDawg

02-23-2008, 03:43

Strike For The South

02-23-2008, 04:11

The reality is that Beirut and people in his camp want guns to be limited to the point of obsolescence because they maintain that crazy people can get their hands on them more easily. They support laws that ban guns wherever they can find them in an effort to make guns obsolete, hence their support of university bans. Makes sense.

Crazed Rabbit and those in his camp believe that they should have the right to protect their families and themselves at all times without relying on the government, - who time and time again arrives on time to send the bodies to the morgue and protect the next family. Because of an increase in college shootings they have a choice - they can either ban guns further or support conceal carry on campuses - where their lives are statistically more endangered.

I think that school shooting fatalities will be reduced with either measure, but I support conceal carry laws because it solidifies the right to self/family defence as enumerated in the 2nd amendment.

Wow. Im willing to bet you've never shot a living thing in your life much less a person. A gun is the great equalizer but you hafto understand the gravity of the power that you have in your hands. You can take lives. You are so so wrong. Im not worried about the guns. The guns dont do anything Im worried about the people and the people im most worried about are people like you who think more guns in school is a good thing. You have this romantic notion of civic minded students rising as one subduing the evildoer. That isnt how its going to happen people are going to get scared and when people get scared people make rash decisons like discharge firearms in a crowded area and kill innocents.

Beirut

02-23-2008, 04:24

ICantSpellDawg

02-23-2008, 06:31

Interesting. Almost completely wrong, but interesting.

Aside from all the other guns that I've owned (several dozen), I've had the same Browning BL-22 my father gave to me at Christmas when I was fourteen. So if you can find anyone else on this board who has owned the same rifle for thirty years, I'd be delighted to hear you tell them they are anti-gun as well. ~:smoking:

I've read that you have guns. They are already banned on university in almost evey case. Arn't you the one who is always using school shootings to make 2nd amendment defenders look like nazis? Or is that Goofball and Tribesman? What kind of plan are you suggesting that we adopt on a national level in terms of gun regulation?

It sounds like you are a fan of guns.

ICantSpellDawg

02-23-2008, 06:35

You have this romantic notion of civic minded students rising as one subduing the evildoer. That isnt how its going to happen people are going to get scared and when people get scared people make rash decisons like discharge firearms in a crowded area and kill innocents.

I've never seen it. It's worth a try on a few select campuses. We'll see if it turns into a blood bath.

BTW I haven't shot a person as far as I know.

Strike For The South

02-23-2008, 07:04

I've never seen it. It's worth a try on a few select campuses. We'll see if it turns into a blood bath.

BTW I haven't shot a person as far as I know.

Its reactionary measure that will cuase more harm than good.

ICantSpellDawg

02-23-2008, 07:38

Its reactionary measure that will cuase more harm than good.

I'm for it. It makes sense. If people have a right to carry guns, why should they forfeit that right when they need it most? School by school basis is the best way to implement it.

Beirut

02-23-2008, 13:48

They are already banned on university in almost evey case.

Good. Remove the word "almost" and it will be better.

Arn't you the one who is always using school shootings to make 2nd amendment defenders look like nazis?

Not at all, I'm a great fan of the American Constitution. A wonderful and remarkable document. But is is neither infalible nor always explicit. If it was, you would not require a Supreme Court to interpret it's meanings from time to time. Nor would it have required amendments in the past, or the future as some wish to impart upon it.

What kind of plan are you suggesting that we adopt on a national level in terms of gun regulation?

A realistic one that incorporates both the rights of gun owners with the reality of the inherent danger guns present.

But we should perhaps keep this on topic.

It sounds like you are a fan of guns.

Shooting is a great sport. Lots of fun. And there are legitimate self-defense issues that can't be ignored. But carrying handguns in school is, to us lefty Canadians anyway, absolutely sickening.

Aside from the grievous technical concerns of having young inexperienced and untrained people carrying guns unsuitable to the tactical situation in a crowded environment (which no one seems able or willing to confront), there are legitimate social concerns as well.

Hey, I'm a fan of car racing as well, but I still insist that traffic slow to a crawl in a school zone.

Adrian II

02-23-2008, 14:41

Not at all, I'm a great fan of the American Constitution. A wonderful and remarkable document. But is is neither infalible nor always explicit. If it was, you would not require a Supreme Court to interpret it's meanings from time to time. Nor would it have required amendments in the past, or the future as some wish to impart upon it.My dear Beirut, one is sounding more and more like James Madison these days, and that is meant as a serious compliment.
Command of language, clarity of thought, good show! :toff:

Those who want to keep their guns because they think they need them or because they like them should state their own reasons, not invoke the Second Amendment. Given the circumstances of the young republic, Madison had military reasons to introduce the Second:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. (Federalist 46)
His vision proved to be invaluable in the first decades. Instead of extrapolating on this, I will let The Battle of New Orleans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6wmrHj4kiQ)do the talking:

then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em well

Beirut

02-23-2008, 17:26

My dearest AdrianII,

Any kind word from you I accept with gracious thanks. :sunny:

Especially when it overlooks the reckless spelling mistakes I seem to commit with such abandon.

Tribesman

02-23-2008, 17:38

Instead of extrapolating on this, I will let The Battle of New Orleans do the talking:

Mythical accounts are not a good example Adrian .
The only reason for the British defeat was British incompetance .

Adrian II

02-23-2008, 18:33

Mythical accounts are not a good example Adrian .
The only reason for the British defeat was British incompetance .It must have been since Jackson had only a motley troop of 4000 against 10,000crack British troops fresh from the European campaign.

The story is more than myth. Jackson's rag-tag army was actually comprised of various militia, Indians, pirates, free blacks and what have you. Thir guns were not state of the art, and that is reflected in the squirrel gun mention.

Tribesman

02-23-2008, 21:02

It must have been since Jackson had only a motley troop of 4000 against 10,000crack British troops fresh from the European campaign.

They certainly were not fresh or crack troops , nor were the motley group all from the european campaign , the Jamaican troops mostly died of exposure (those that hadn't already died of disease).
The British only attacked .....after a long upstream row , a very very long walk through bad ground in atrocious weather , with a severe shortage of supplies and ammunition ....because it was their experience throughout the war that the militia would turn and run .

Thir guns were not state of the art, and that is reflected in the squirrel gun mention.
Their guns state doesn't come into it , emplaced artillery inside strong fortifications on firm ground with plentiful ammunition will slaughter ill equipped , sick , exhausted troops advancing in close order over a narrow restricted frontage on open ground , especially when their own supporting artillery is short of ammunition and sinking in a swamp under its own weight .

Xiahou

02-24-2008, 02:22

That isnt how its going to happen people are going to get scared and when people get scared people make rash decisons like discharge firearms in a crowded area and kill innocents.
I've already shown an example of armed university students subduing an armed attacker on campus. That is how it happens. Sure, it's possible (but rare) that innocents could get accidentally shot- but innocents are going to also get shot when an armed attacker is unopposed. I think most cases of innocent bystanders getting shot involves the police, the so-called experts.

I'm for it. It makes sense. If people have a right to carry guns, why should they forfeit that right when they need it most? School by school basis is the best way to implement it.It is happening. Most universities probably have policies against weapons, but legally, there's no restrictions in place in many states. States like Utah apparently have laws that explicitly allow it. And what's happening? Mostly nothing. University students aren't accidentally shooting each other or blasting one another over a parking space or any of the other nonsense arguments people trot out.

Beirut

02-24-2008, 02:47

I've already shown an example of armed university students subduing an armed attacker on campus. That is how it happens. Sure, it's possible (but rare) that innocents could get accidentally shot- but innocents are going to also get shot when an armed attacker is unopposed. I think most cases of innocent bystanders getting shot involves the police, the so-called experts.

I`m curious how it could be `possible, but rare`, that innocent people could get shot. An interesting use of language.

Do you have any views on the sorts of handguns and ammunition that should be allowed to be carried on campus? Would you agree to any limitations?

Since you would allow handguns, does that mean you would also allow knives, stun guns, impact weapons, and mace?

Xiahou

02-24-2008, 03:20

I`m curious how it could be `possible, but rare`, that innocent people could get shot. An interesting use of language.People seem to assume that just because someone isn't a police officer, they'll blindly plug away without a thought- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest this and the only cases I've seen contradict the notion.

Do you have any views on the sorts of handguns and ammunition that should be allowed to be carried on campus? Would you agree to any limitations?
I think hollow points make the most sense, but I don't see reason to regulate it.

Since you would allow handguns, does that mean you would also allow knives, stun guns, impact weapons, and mace?Mace makes sense as an alternative for those who can't or won't carry a gun. Knives, brass knuckels, stun guns, ect don't really make much sense to me- so if you're asking me personally, I'd say no to them but it's really not my call. :shrug:

Beirut

02-24-2008, 04:30

People seem to assume that just because someone isn't a police officer, they'll blindly plug away without a thought- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest this and the only cases I've seen contradict the notion.

I think the spray & spray technique derives from the shooter`s perception of his limitless magazine capacity, unless the shooter is well trained, which often leaves out a lot of police and perhaps even more civilians.

I think hollow points make the most sense, but I don't see reason to regulate it.

Wouldn`t you think that young people (reasonably assumed to be inexperienced shooters mostly) carrying high capacity semi-autos, which for reliabiltiy`s sake are most often loaded with FMJ ammunition (which can overpenetrate), would present a highly dangerous situation in a crowded shooting environment environment?

What about people carrying overpowered handguns, such as a .44 Magnum, which might be Dirty Harry cool, but utterly unsuited to a crowded shooting environment?

What about cocked and locked single action semi-automatics, which present a much higher danger of accidental discharge for an inexperienced shooter?

What about mandatory snatch-proof holsters?

What about the newer (and quite nasty) ammunition types like the Winchester Black Talon rounds, which create particularly heinous wounds?

Would you not agree that there are serious techical considerations to be taken into account before allowing handguns carried by young inexperienced shooters onto a crowded school campus?

Mace makes sense as an alternative for those who can't or won't carry a gun. Knives, brass knuckels, stun guns, ect don't really make much sense to me- so if you're asking me personally, I'd say no to them but it's really not my call. :shrug:

Ok.

Xiahou

02-24-2008, 05:11

I think the spray & spray technique derives from the shooter`s perception of his limitless magazine capacity, unless the shooter is well trained, which often leaves out a lot of police and perhaps even more civilians.Spray and pray? I don't know any gun owner who thinks that. The gun owners I know are very conscientious- and that goes double for permit holders. Again, evidence does not bear out the spray and pray notion- there are tens of thousands of permit holders in my state alone and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any accounts of "spray and pray" from a law-abiding citizen.

Wouldn`t you think that young people (reasonably assumed to be inexperienced shooters mostly) carrying high capacity semi-autos, which for reliabiltiy`s sake are most often loaded with FMJ ammunition (which can overpenetrate), would present a highly dangerous situation in a crowded shooting environment environment?I like the reliability and predictability of revolvers better than semi-autos, but again, that's just a personal preference and I see no need to regulate. If you want to see a flame war, go on a gun site and tell people that semi-autos are unsafe for carry. :laugh4:
Now, if we ever find ourselves with a rash of bystanders being shot by overzealous spray & pray permit holders whose rounds over-penetrate maybe we should try to look into ways to better educate people. But right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

What about people carrying overpowered handguns, such as a .44 Magnum, which might be Dirty Harry cool, but utterly unsuited to a crowded shooting environment?I think 44's are also utterly unsuited to concealed carry- they're too big and too heavy. And I seriously doubt that people who wish to conceal/carry put having a cool-looking gun above one that's convenient and effective.

What about mandatory snatch-proof holsters?Nah.

What about the newer (and quite nasty) ammunition types like the Winchester Black Talon rounds, which create particularly heinous wounds?IIRC, Black Talons were essentially normal JHP ammo that they made the mistake of giving a black coating. The ensuing bad PR made their manufacturer pull them only to replace them with a similar non-black, less scary version that's essentially the same in all other ways. I'm not an expert, a lawyer, or anything else of the sort, but I think JHP ammo makes good sense because it shouldn't overpenetrate and should be more likely to stop your target. I've heard good things about CorBons (http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/corbon/convjhp.htm).

Would you not agree that there are serious techical considerations to be taken into account before allowing handguns carried by young inexperienced shooters onto a crowded school campus?I think that if most people exercise some common sense, that's usually enough. I also think that most regular gun carriers are responsible people and I'm not going to get too excited about it until it's shown otherwise. Further, I think it's a gun owner's responsibility- and those who carry in particular- to learn how to properly use, maintain, and handle their guns. Any who use their guns in an irresponsible and negligent manner should be dealt with harshly- it's a big responsibility and should not be taken lightly.

I think it's mainly about mind-frame. You seem to look at a room of your peers and are afraid that one of them may be carrying. On the other hand, I can take a small measure of comfort in thinking that other law-abiding citizens may be carrying weapons whenever I'm out and about. :shrug:

Tribesman

02-24-2008, 08:50

I think that if most people exercise some common sense, that's usually enough.
Common sense can be a rare commodity .

Beirut

02-24-2008, 14:18

Spray and pray? I don't know any gun owner who thinks that. The gun owners I know are very conscientious... :

I would think that a spray & pray shooting would come from a reaction to a dangerous situation as opposed to being thought out beforehand.

Agreed, though, most of the gun owners I know are conscientious as well.

I like the reliability and predictability of revolvers better than semi-autos, but again, that's just a personal preference and I see no need to regulate. If you want to see a flame war, go on a gun site and tell people that semi-autos are unsafe for carry. :laugh4: :

Why go there when I can do it here. ~;)

I don`t think most semi-autos are unsafe to carry, but a cocked and locked single action semi-auto, for example, is a beast that requires a very experienced shooter to carry safely.

Now, if we ever find ourselves with a rash of bystanders being shot by overzealous spray & pray permit holders whose rounds over-penetrate maybe we should try to look into ways to better educate people. But right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

I cannot help but think of the horse and the barn door.

I think 44's are also utterly unsuited to concealed carry- they're too big and too heavy. And I seriously doubt that people who wish to conceal/carry put having a cool-looking gun above one that's convenient and effective.

Amongst younger people, especially young men, I`m not sure I share that opinion. Bigger, better, badder is a real influence on young people. And there is doubtlessly going to be some, shall we say, anthropomorphizing of guns amongst younger men which could, and probably will, lead to poor choices in weapons and ammunition.

By the by, there are some short barrelled .44s that are well suited to concealed carry.

Nah.

Or yah.

IIRC, Black Talons were essentially normal JHP ammo that they made the mistake of giving a black coating. The ensuing bad PR made their manufacturer pull them only to replace them with a similar non-black, less scary version that's essentially the same in all other ways. I'm not an expert, a lawyer, or anything else of the sort, but I think JHP ammo makes good sense because it shouldn't overpenetrate and should be more likely to stop your target.

The Black Talon handgun ammo, unless I`m mistaken, are JHP with serrations in the lead that cause the bullet to open up like a round saw blade, causing an actual removal of body tissue instead of a temporary wound cavity. Very nasty.

I think that if most people exercise some common sense, that's usually enough. I also think that most regular gun carriers are responsible people and I'm not going to get too excited about it until it's shown otherwise. Further, I think it's a gun owner's responsibility- and those who carry in particular- to learn how to properly use, maintain, and handle their guns. Any who use their guns in an irresponsible and negligent manner should be dealt with harshly- it's a big responsibility and should not be taken lightly.

Agreed, it should not be taken lightly at all. But do you not think students carrying guns at school constitutes an unusual carry environment that (God forbid) even if carry was allowed, very special considerations and rules would have to be set in place?

I think it's mainly about mind-frame. You seem to look at a room of your peers and are afraid that one of them may be carrying. On the other hand, I can take a small measure of comfort in thinking that other law-abiding citizens may be carrying weapons whenever I'm out and about. :shrug:

I don`t fear that other people are carrying because the vast majority of Canadians feel that carrying a handgun on a day to day basis is insane and represents a horrible cultural and social outlook. I take great comfort that no one is carrying a handgun. (Yes, I know that criminals will do as they please, but I don`t want to emulate the worst aspects of their behaviour and neither do the vast majority of Canadians.)

Again, as if it hasn`t been stated already, most Canadians would rather sell their children to a Nike factory in China then send them to a school where there are armed students. I think, and I am sure the vast majority of Canadians agree, that legalizing guns in school is nothing less than absolutely insane.

Thank you for answering in detail. Mostly, I was looking to see if any of the pro-carry people were willing or able to take this discussion to a greater depth. I`m willing to discuss the finer technical points, the devil being in the details, but I think that might bore the pants off everyone and goodness knows we both know where we stand. I`ll leave it to you if you wish to further the discussion. If you do, I will be delighted to respond.

Adrian II

02-24-2008, 15:53

They certainly were not fresh or crack troops , nor were the motley group all from the european campaign , the Jamaican troops mostly died of exposure (those that hadn't already died of disease).
The British only attacked .....after a long upstream row , a very very long walk through bad ground in atrocious weather , with a severe shortage of supplies and ammunition ....because it was their experience throughout the war that the militia would turn and run .

Their guns state doesn't come into it , emplaced artillery inside strong fortifications on firm ground with plentiful ammunition will slaughter ill equipped , sick , exhausted troops advancing in close order over a narrow restricted frontage on open ground , especially when their own supporting artillery is short of ammunition and sinking in a swamp under its own weight .The obvious (with hindsight) British mistakes were compounded by the fact that Jackson was a brilliant tactician.

1. He chose to set up quarters near Chalmette precisely because it was a choking point.

2. His surprise attack on the night of the 23rd on the encamped British prevented their organised march on New Orleans. For that engagement Jackson could commit only two 6-pounders, one of which was overturned early in the engagement.

3. As to the final engagement on the 8th, Jackson actually ordered his batteries to cease fire in order to lift the smoke so his musket-men could take aim..

And Jackson was the one who was short of ammunition. He had to buy half his stuff from the pirates: "I procured from them 7500 flints for pistols and boarding peaces, which was solely the supply of flints for all my militia and if it had not been for this providential aid the country must have fallen. "

Tribesman

02-24-2008, 20:44

And Jackson was the one who was short of ammunition. He had to buy half his stuff from the pirates:
If he obtained half his stuff from an arms dealer he was not short of ammuntion at the time of the engagement was he .

Its funny that you chose a war that demonstrated the inadequacies of the militia .

Adrian II

02-24-2008, 23:25

Its funny that you chose a war that demonstrated the inadequacies of the militia.Funny that Jackson thought the militias saved the day. The U.S. navy certainly didn't, not did the handful of 16-pounders Jackson could bring to bear. The militias were surprisingly effective considering that during assembly some (Mississippi and Kentucky) had no guns at all...

Tribesman

02-25-2008, 02:59

Funny that Jackson thought the militias saved the day. The U.S. navy certainly didn't, not did the handful of 16-pounders Jackson could bring to bear.
Terribly sorry old boy but eyewitneses said that the artillery caused most of the casualties , especailly the 18 and 24 pounders across the river (the ones that were supposed to be taken care of before an advance should be attemted)
Jackson said the militia had saved the day to boost his popularity and to cover that he mistakenly sent most of the regulars to the wrong place leaving him only 2 regular army regiment in Orleans .

Adrian II

02-25-2008, 12:36

Terribly sorry old boy but eyewitneses said that the artillery caused most of the casualties , especailly the 18 and 24 pounders across the river (the ones that were supposed to be taken care of before an advance should be attemted).Eyewitnesses say the British were mown down during their ill-conceived frontal assault by both American artillery and expert musketry from the Kentuckians and Tennesseans. And they had been demoralised not by disease, but by previous American feats such as Jackson's pre-emptive attack on the 23rd of December.

And finally, of course, the stupid Irish of the Fourty-Forth forgot to bring the planks they were ordered to cary so everyone else could cross the ditches .. :laugh4:
Jackson said the militia had saved the day to boost his popularity and to cover that he mistakenly sent most of the regulars to the wrong place leaving him only 2 regular army regiment in Orleans .On the contrary, Jackson set up a line that was near impossible to overturn. Even when the British under Colonel Rennie conquered an American battery, it was reclaimed by American musketry.

The affair illustrated something else, too. As American military mapmaker Arsene Latour put it, the British seemed innately unable to 'sacrifice the regularity of their movements to promptitude and celerity' because 'it is well-known that agility is not the distinctive quality of British troops.' Opposed to their slavish notion of discipline was the free spirit of the American militias who stood coureageously (and irresponsibly) atop their reinforcements to pick off British 'squirrels'.

It is a typical mistake of British historians to attribute some of their nation's losses to bad British leadership instead of the superior leadership or mentality of the opposition. And Europeans in general tend to overlook how revolutionary the American Revolution really was.

All in all, your mistaken analysis leads to the mistaken conclusion that the militias failed at new Orleans. In fact, their success contributed to the postponement of the establishment of a strong American professional army till WWI.

Pannonian

02-25-2008, 13:19

All in all, your mistaken analysis leads to the mistaken conclusion that the militias failed at new Orleans. In fact, their success contributed to the postponement of the establishment of a strong American professional army till WWI.
While Tribes has been nitpicking in his usual fashion, his original claim for the failure of the militia was for the war, not the battle. Whatever happened at New Orleans could hardly compensate for what happened at Bladensburg as a test of the militia as a viable home defence force.

'Its funny that you chose a war that demonstrated the inadequacies of the militia .'

Husar

02-25-2008, 13:54

Well, there were/are a lot of german immigrants in the US, should be clear why the militias were/are so good, with such genes.... :sweatdrop:

KukriKhan

02-25-2008, 17:18

Well, there were/are a lot of german immigrants in the US, should be clear why the militias were/are so good, with such genes.... :sweatdrop:

Hehe. "Jawohl, ya'll!".

Adrian II

02-25-2008, 18:05

While Tribes has been nitpicking in his usual fashion, his original claim for the failure of the militia was for the war, not the battle. Whatever happened at New Orleans could hardly compensate for what happened at Bladensburg as a test of the militia as a viable home defence force.The militia was always meant to be the last resort in the defense of the nation. As such it proved its metal.

The War of 1812 started out as a war of agression, something at which the British were much better at the time. When the tide in Europe turned, more British troops became available while the strangehold of the British navy resulted in national bankruptcy (and the personal bankruptcy of Jefferson) - after which there was only one recourse left, as always in the early years of the American republic.

Sure, the militia system wasn't ideal. Even Jackson had trouble controlling some of the rabble under his command (to the point where he had to face a mutiny of the Tennesseans because he'd had one of the shot for insurordination). His success however contributed to the notion that there was no need for a large standing army along the lines of the British example.

Tribesman

02-25-2008, 22:43

Opposed to their slavish notion of discipline was the free spirit of the American militias who stood coureageously (and irresponsibly) atop their reinforcements to pick off British 'squirrels'.

Sorry Adrian , those militia that stood courageously , would they be somewhat different tothe militia that ran away at that battle .
the ones that stood stood with regular troops and strong fortifications and supporting fire .
the ones that ran just had strong fortifications and supporting fire .

His success however contributed to the notion that there was no need for a large standing army along the lines of the British example.
Ok leaving aside that Britain didn't have a large standing army, are you forgetting the call and debates within his administration for a large standing army precicley because of the failures of the militia during the war .
His success did contribute to the notion , but the notion was a flawed one and was recognised as a flawed one .

It is a typical mistake of British historians to attribute some of their nation's losses to bad British leadership instead of the superior leadership or mentality of the opposition. so would American historians , like American army college historians for example attribute bad leadership of the British for the failure of the assault

Adrian II

02-26-2008, 12:41

Sorry Adrian, those militia that stood courageously , would they be somewhat different tothe militia that ran away at that battle.Yes, they were differently led (Winder was an idiot) as well as differently motivated.

You seem to forget that the War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history, begun for the wrong reasons by the wrong people (Madison was a brilliant thinker, but a poor President) and under persistently weak military leadership, a problem that has plagued the Americans far more than it ever did the British (beside corruption and sutlers which were an additional plague for the militias). The New England states were always opposed to it and enthusiasm in the South and West quickly evaporated. Many militias refused to cross the border with Canada. After Bladensburg some of the New England ports even pledged allegiance to the Crown again, and happily so, since it meant they could resume trading.

In this atmosphere, the battle of Bladensburg, fought by badly motivated and poorly led American militias who hardly outnumbered the professional British troops opposing them, was bound to be lost.

Tachikaze

02-26-2008, 20:56

In which school did the War fo 1812 occur?

KukriKhan

02-26-2008, 21:22

In which school did the War fo 1812 occur?

LoL, Tachikaze. The school of discussion of the legitimacy of the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" bit of the 2nd A.

Although AdrianII and Tribesman have wandered pretty far afield, I trust they'll come back 'round to more immediate relevance soon.

So far, it's been a refreshing change from the usual "You gun-luvvin Nazi", v "Commie-pinko property- grabber" argument.

In my opinion.

Tribesman

02-27-2008, 00:38

You seem to forget that the War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history
I don't forget , its just that that war happens to be my favourite war , and that battle in particular always makes me laugh (especialy all the myths that grew from it).

Strike For The South

02-27-2008, 00:45

I don't forget , its just that that war happens to be my favourite war , and that battle in particular always makes me laugh (especialy all the myths that grew from it).

Why is it your favorite?

Proletariat

02-27-2008, 00:46

The last page of this thread has had me more interested in something I knew little about than most of the backroom has for a few months. I hope it doesn't get back on track or die anytime soon.

:7teacher: :2thumbsup:

Tribesman

02-27-2008, 00:58

Why is it your favorite?

That should be obvious Strike , the whole thing was a joke , a completely pointless stupid joke that was totally uneccesary and achieved absolutely nothing , the battle of new orleans is so funny in particular because it happened after the pointless war was already over .
Though I think my real favourite from the whole farce was the EIC Nautilus and USS Peacock , that is just to funny by half .

Strike For The South

02-27-2008, 01:02

That should be obvious Strike , the whole thing was a joke , a completely pointless stupid joke that was totally uneccesary and achieved absolutely nothing , the battle of new orleans is so funny in particular because it happened after the pointless war was already over .
Though I think my real favourite from the whole farce was the EIC Nautilus and USS Peacock , that is just to funny by half .

Well that leaves us allot of canadites. I wouldve opted for WWI but to each his own

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-27-2008, 01:06

Well that leaves us allot of canadites. I wouldve opted for WWI but to each his own

We've been sitting here since Christmas 1914, during which time millions of men have died, and we've moved no further than an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping.

:book:

Strike For The South

02-27-2008, 01:08

:book:

well yea

Adrian II

02-27-2008, 14:50

That should be obvious Strike , the whole thing was a joke , a completely pointless stupid joke that was totally uneccesary and achieved absolutely nothing , the battle of new orleans is so funny in particular because it happened after the pointless war was already over .
Though I think my real favourite from the whole farce was the EIC Nautilus and USS Peacock , that is just to funny by half .Other people's wars and conflicts often look pointless, particularly from afar or with 20/20 hindsight.

ICantSpellDawg

02-27-2008, 16:06

This sums up my argument pretty nicely - I like speaking, I leave the writing to those who like writing.

February 27, 2008
Guns Save Lives
By John Stossel
link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html)

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.

Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.

How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.

It's what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.

Likewise, law professor Glenn Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun".

It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

Beirut

02-27-2008, 17:07

I was in Montreal last Sunday at McGill University. The regional championships for my kid`s spelling bee were held there. While at McGill, I took a long hard look at the environment, the students, the whole feeling of the place, and when I imagined that the students were carrying handguns under their jackets or in their backpacks, it made me ill.

Everyone knows where everyone else stands on the issue and my views haven`t changed one bit. Now they are even more harsh. Handguns at school are a perversion of common sense and a horrible admission of failure in the face of adversity.

Sending your kids to school armed is not a statement of freedom; it is an admission that your society, your government, and your culture are in a state of disaster and that nothing is being fixed.

Tachikaze

02-27-2008, 19:03

LoL, Tachikaze. The school of discussion of the legitimacy of the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" bit of the 2nd A.

Although AdrianII and Tribesman have wandered pretty far afield, I trust they'll come back 'round to more immediate relevance soon.

So far, it's been a refreshing change from the usual "You gun-luvvin Nazi", v "Commie-pinko property- grabber" argument.

In my opinion.
That's true. Discussing how to clean toothpaste out of a washcloth is more interesting than gun threads.

Adrian II

02-27-2008, 19:42

In which school did the War fo 1812 occur?It happened in the school of statecraft, the one that produces, among other things, constitutions and their amendments.

Xiahou

02-28-2008, 15:53

I was in Montreal last Sunday at McGill University. The regional championships for my kid`s spelling bee were held there. While at McGill, I took a long hard look at the environment, the students, the whole feeling of the place, and when I imagined that the students were carrying handguns under their jackets or in their backpacks, it made me ill.
Why? By kids, I assume you mean University students(also known as adults). If so, it wouldn't bother me.

The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.They are? Awesome! :2thumbsup:

Beirut

02-28-2008, 16:33

Why? By kids, I assume you mean University students(also known as adults). If so, it wouldn't bother me.

The kids I mentioned were all in the 4th to 8th grade. The regional finals for the spelling bee were held at McGill because it's a gorgeous place. By students, I meant university students. (My kid tied for 4th place out of the final 50 who won out of 11,000 who entered. Thank you, thank you. :bow:)

I know as much about guns as probably anyone here, but I do not understand this need to have one on my person at all times. I can't imagine living in a place where I didn't feel right unless I was packing a Glock and thirty extra rounds.

I guess I'm just lucky I don't live in constant state of fear.

Xiahou

02-28-2008, 17:02

(My kid tied for 4th place out of the final 50 who won out of 11,000 who entered. Thank you, thank you. :bow:)Congratulations. :bow:

I know as much about guns as probably anyone here, but I do not understand this need to have one on my person at all times. I can't imagine living in a place where I didn't feel right unless I was packing a Glock and thirty extra rounds.If you don't feel the need to, then dont. The problem comes when you want to prevent other law-abiding citizens from doing so,

I guess I'm just lucky I don't live in constant state of fear.Weak. ~:handball:

ICantSpellDawg

02-28-2008, 17:20

I guess I'm just lucky I don't live in constant state of fear.

http://www.expresschemist.co.uk/pics/products/2699/0/vagisil.jpg
Here you go. Just kidding :drama1: :sweatdrop: :painting: :belly: :elephant: :cheerleader: :hippie::drama3:

LittleGrizzly

02-28-2008, 17:33

Just to build on the point in beiruts last sentence...

Unless your going somewhere where you use the gun, hunting or down shooting range ect. what do you need the gun for apart from stopping bad people ?

and so why would you need to take a gun into school unless there is some fear from a potential shooter ?

Tachikaze

02-28-2008, 18:12

I guess I'm just lucky I don't live in constant state of fear.
You live in a civilized country. Enjoy it.

Xiahou

02-28-2008, 18:24

and so why would you need to take a gun into school unless there is some fear from a potential shooter ?So, if you're not afraid- it won't happen? I doubt most victims of school shootings go to class that day scared the someone is going to shoot them. Sticking your head in the sand may make you feel better, but it has zero impact on whether or not some lunatic will decide to stroll into class and start shooting the place up. Not being afraid doesn't make you any safer.

You live in a civilized country. Enjoy it.Maybe they're looking for immigrants. You could go live in this utopia.~:idea:
I know if I felt I lived somewhere so backward, barbaric, dangerous, and uncivilized as you seem to think the US is, I would do whatever I could to get out.

LittleGrizzly

02-28-2008, 18:29

ICantSpellDawg

02-28-2008, 19:52

Not being afraid doesn't make you any safer.

it doesn't, but if people feel the need to take a gun into school, even if its just incase, it shows a level of fear, which kind of validates beiruts point...

so does a seatbelt in a car
a helmet on a bike
a lock on your door
or a claymore in the cookie jar... wait.

It validates nothing. We are advertising safety and responsibility, he is arguing that the danger doesn't exist. I'm glad that he lives in Canada too. I don't live in a "constant state of fear", nor would I if I lived in a castle law state or one with a less extreme conceal carry law. What would be different was - when I felt the fear of being threatened with a gun or a knife in the middle the night - I would feel safer to know that I had a gun on my hip or that someone who wasn't trying to rob/kill me might be nearby with a gun of his own.

Or we could just put armed policemen every five feet down the road and ban guns completely. But then again, why did we ever break away from England in the first place?

It is progressive to believe in helping to end poverty, educate the masses, and arm all citizens who are responsible and request it.

Beirut

02-28-2008, 20:54

Congratulations. :bow:

Thanks! :sunny:

What I didn't know until I got there was that 1rst prize was a $5000 RESP donation from the corporate sponsors. (Registered Education Savings Plan.)

If you don't feel the need to, then dont. The problem comes when you want to prevent other law-abiding citizens from doing so.

I guess it's a question of what kind of society you wish to live in. I insist on living in a free society, which I do, but that does not give everyone the right to do as they wish. There are limitations. One of those limitations is that people don't carry handguns into schools. The majority of my fellow Canadians share that feeling. That's the kind of society we chose to live in.

Weak. ~:handball:

Not really. It's quite pleasent. When I go walking, talking, shopping, swimming, out to see a movie, to a bar, drive a car, or any of a thousand other things I might do, I am not in a state of fear. I feel no need to have a handgun on me at all times. If I lived in a place where I did feel the need, I would drag my family the hell out of there the same day and go somewhere civilized.

By the by, and you may stuff this question in my ear if you wish - can a law abiding person carry a handgun on an airplane? If not, why not?

Xiahou

02-28-2008, 21:03

Not really. It's quite pleasent. When I go walking, talking, shopping, swimming, out to see a movie, to a bar, drive a car, or any of a thousand other things I might do, I am not in a state of fear. I feel no need to have a handgun on me at all times. If I lived in a place where I did feel the need, I would drag my family the hell out of there the same day and go somewhere civilized.Sounds more to me like you live in fear of the thought that your neighbors may be armed and take misguided comfort in that idea that laws forbid it. All that does is stop those who want to follow the law. If someone is intent on shooting you(already illegal), they're not going to allow a law prohibiting their carrying a weapon stop them. :shrug:

By the by, and you may stuff this question in my ear if you wish - can a law abiding person carry a handgun on an airplane? If not, why not?
Most can't- not on commercial jets. It's based on the discredited idea that security personnel can guarantee everyone will be disarmed. This has been shown false on a number of occasions. Why do you ask?

Beirut

02-28-2008, 21:11

Sounds more to me like you live in fear of the thought that your neighbors may be armed and take misguided comfort in that idea that laws forbid it. All that does is stop those who want to follow the law. If someone is intent on shooting you(already illegal), they're not going to allow a law prohibiting their carrying a weapon stop them. :shrug:

I'm sure my neighbour is armed, he told me. But his gun stays at home just as mine does.

As I said, it's a question of what kind of society you want to live in. He and I agree, and so do 99% of the people I know, that nobody except the cops (and even them sometimes...) should carry a handgun on the street, and least of all, to school.

Most can't- not on commercial jets. It's based on the discredited idea that security personnel can guarantee everyone will be disarmed. This has been shown false on a number of occasions. Why do you ask?

Most? You mean some can?

I'm asking because I'm curious if you, or the people who share your views, are willing to have any limitations on the carrying of weapons?

Do you think a law abiding student should be able to pack his schoolroom-issue .357 Magnum onto a 757 for the trip home during Spring Break?

Xiahou

02-28-2008, 21:26

I'm sure my neighbour is armed, he told me. But his gun stays at home just as mine does.

As I said, it's a question of what kind of society you want to live in. He and I agree, and so do 99% of the people I know, that nobody except the cops (and even them sometimes...) should carry a handgun on the street, and least of all, to school.Why are you ok with him carrying a weapon at home, but it makes you sick to think he might do so outside his residence? Again, if it's about fear- it's on your part. As I've said, and should be clear, making the carrying of weapons illegal does virtually nothing to guarantee you won't be shot by someone who chooses to break the law. As Tuff alluded to, people who carry guns 'live in fear' of crime the same way people who wear seatbelts 'live in fear' of crashes- they don't. Most people who wear seatbelts hope they never need them- the same as most people who carry guns. You seem to think that if someone is legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, you are less safe and by the opposite, you are somehow safer. That doesn't follow.

Most? You mean some can?Sure. Pilots who choose to can and Air Marhalls, I believe, are required to.

I'm asking because I'm curious if you, or the people who share your views, are willing to have any limitations on the carrying of weapons?

Do you think a law abiding student should be able to pack his schoolroom-issue .357 Magnum onto a 757 for the trip home during Spring Break?I don't see the harm in it- as long as he/she is a responsible, law-abiding individual. I'm not too outraged that they can't either though- there's a long laundry list of prohibited items for flights. And I think airliners are technically private property, so if airlines want to screen people before entering, it's up to us to comply or stay on the ground(I know it's more complicated than that, but I don't feel like going off on a tangent).

Tachikaze

02-28-2008, 21:30

So, if you're not afraid- it won't happen? I doubt most victims of school shootings go to class that day scared the someone is going to shoot them. Sticking your head in the sand may make you feel better, but it has zero impact on whether or not some lunatic will decide to stroll into class and start shooting the place up. Not being afraid doesn't make you any safer.

Maybe they're looking for immigrants. You could go live in this utopia.~:idea:
I know if I felt I lived somewhere so backward, barbaric, dangerous, and uncivilized as you seem to think the US is, I would do whatever I could to get out.
A nation doesn't have to be a utopia to be less backward, barbaric, dangerous, and uncivilized than the US. I can't understand anyone who is happy in nation full of fear and violence. That's absolute insanity. It's like constantly living in a video game. People who say they want a society run by a justice based on who is the best shot is living in a boy's fantasy world, not reality.

If I were in my 20s, I would move to Japan in a heartbeat. But I refuse to give up the home I have been developing for the last 15 years just because of wacko gun nuts.

drone

02-28-2008, 21:35

I'm asking because I'm curious if you, or the people who share your views, are willing to have any limitations on the carrying of weapons?

Do you think a law abiding student should be able to pack his schoolroom-issue .357 Magnum onto a 757 for the trip home during Spring Break?
One thing to note about weapons on airlines. Airplanes are private property, the owners can restrict possession as they see fit. Not the best example to use for this discussion.

Mooks

02-28-2008, 21:50

Meh, I carry a knife around wherever I go (Excluding school). Im not in a constant state of fear or anything, its just that their is a very very real possibility of me getting jumped by people who have this absurd notion that I have money, or by thugs who get a kick out of it.

Beirut

02-28-2008, 22:25

Why are you ok with him carrying a weapon at home, but it makes you sick to think he might do so outside his residence?

What a man does at home and what a man does in public are two entirely different things. I don`t think anyone in any country/culture/society would disagree with that.

If you want to walk around your house naked, covered in jello, carrying a handgun and singing the Soviet national anthem, feel free. Try that downtown and you`ll get a lesson in private vs. public property real fast.

Again, if it's about fear- it's on your part. As I've said, and should be clear, making the carrying of weapons illegal does virtually nothing to guarantee you won't be shot by someone who chooses to break the law. As Tuff alluded to, people who carry guns 'live in fear' of crime the same way people who wear seatbelts 'live in fear' of crashes- they don't. Most people who wear seatbelts hope they never need them- the same as most people who carry guns. You seem to think that if someone is legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, you are less safe and by the opposite, you are somehow safer. That doesn't follow.

I`m not sure I would equate wearing a seatbelt with carrying a handgun, but I do see your point. I just don`t agree with it. Guns in the movie theater, guns at school, guns on airplanes, guns at work, guns at the park with the kids, guns out to dinner with the family, guns at church, guns on holiday, guns, guns guns, guns, guns. It seems less like an ideaology and more like a mental illness. I can`t see how everyone carrying a handgun all the time can be anything but a profound statement that the society they live in is out of control and has gone completely bonkers.

I don't see the harm in it- as long as he/she is a responsible, law-abiding individual.

Really?

Ok.

Beirut

02-28-2008, 22:27

One thing to note about weapons on airlines. Airplanes are private property, the owners can restrict possession as they see fit. Not the best example to use for this discussion.

It was a conceptual question.

drone

02-28-2008, 23:10

It was a conceptual question.
Maybe I should have quoted this post instead:

By the by, and you may stuff this question in my ear if you wish - can a law abiding person carry a handgun on an airplane? If not, why not?
An airplane is private property. One of the reasons carried handguns are generally not allowed is the desire to protect that property. Federal regulations are another. If the regulations did not exist, I'm sure the airlines would still ban them, and be completely correct to do so.

Xiahou

02-28-2008, 23:26

I`m not sure I would equate wearing a seatbelt with carrying a handgun, but I do see your point. I just don`t agree with it. Guns in the movie theater, guns at school, guns on airplanes, guns at work, guns at the park with the kids, guns out to dinner with the family, guns at church, guns on holiday, guns, guns guns, guns, guns. It seems less like an ideaology and more like a mental illness. I can`t see how everyone carrying a handgun all the time can be anything but a profound statement that the society they live in is out of control and has gone completely bonkers.The US must seem like a very scary place to you then. As far as I know, all but 2 states have some sort of concealed weapons permits. I guess we're completely bonkers. :smash:

Beirut

02-29-2008, 01:41

The US must seem like a very scary place to you then. As far as I know, all but 2 states have some sort of concealed weapons permits. I guess we're completely bonkers. :smash:

No more bonkers than us. Just better armed, perhaps.

ICantSpellDawg

02-29-2008, 23:10

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:[91]

* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.

* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

In addition:

* Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [92]

* Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.

* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. [93]
* Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.—and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

* UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. [94] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite a massive increase in the number of police personnel.[95] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air weapons, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including BB guns and soft air weapons).[96] Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005.

* Australia forced the surrender of nearly 650,000 personal firearms in 1997. A study published in 2001 [97] shows a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths, but also reveals an overall rise in non-firearm related violent crime.

* Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned. [98]

Beirut

03-02-2008, 14:01

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309296,00.html

Okey-dokey.

So knives in high school are okay, and handguns at college are okay, but students hugging each other is forbidden?

"From ... Virgina to ... Texas, schools are enforcing their PDA policies. leaving students to go elsewhere for that warm and fuzzy feeling."

"We feel students come to school to learn and we feel that an environment that discourages innapropriate public displays of affection is in keeping with the highest standards we could have as a community and as a school district," (school district superintendent) McGowern said.

John Lennon and Martin Luther King must be crying right now. :shame:

Fragony

03-02-2008, 15:31

That's pretty rich for something so cheap

edit, talking of knives my new baby

http://www.copsplus.com/products/large/cr-m16-12m.jpg

what a beauty

ICantSpellDawg

03-02-2008, 16:51

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-02-2008, 18:42

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309296,00.html
(Unrelated, but then, so was the link)

I've been to schools in Canada where that is under school rules - thankfully, it wasn't stricty enforced in most of them.

Craterus

03-02-2008, 18:53

The problem is that it's just too easy to get hold of guns in America. And, at risk of angering the entire American .Org population, they're not really needed either.

TruePraetorian

03-02-2008, 19:17

The problem is that it's just too easy to get hold of guns in America. And, at risk of angering the entire American .Org population, they're not really needed either.

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

I don't think the problem is it's too easy to get them, I think the problem is it's too easy for lunatics to get them. The gun doesn't kill another person, a person fires the weapon which ultimatley kills the person. To get guns, I think one must pass a psychiatric test. If they are seen as unstable in any way, they cannot bear arms.

Also, you have to remember that the US was founded on many beliefs; One of those is the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Criminals can always get weapons wether they are banned or not, that's why they are criminals. The problem with taking away self-defense weapons for the "victims" in a country like the US would be devistating...seeing as we have much foreign trade and many, many enemies. Im not saying we would all be re-living the Die Hard movies, but taking away guns when your enemies have them is not the smartest thing to do.

Beirut

03-02-2008, 19:29

(Unrelated, but then, so was the link)

It is related. The topic of this thread is school shootings. We have an example of many schools (entire districts) where affection is outlawed and other schools (entire states I think) where weapons are permitted. How long until the same school permits handguns and outlaws kissing? It's insanity. It's not human.

What kind of a message do you think this sends to young people? Because they do pick up on these things. Sitting around the breakfast table a girl can tell her mother she got detention for hugging her boyfriend at high school while she watches her brother put a 9mm with spare mags into a holster before heading off to college. It's... nuts.

I've been to schools in Canada where that is under school rules - thankfully, it wasn't stricty enforced in most of them.

I'll check that out. If true, it's as stupid here as it is anywhere.

Tell you one thing, though, Canada will land a man on the surface of the sun before we ever legalize handguns at school.

Craterus

03-02-2008, 19:37

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

I don't think the problem is it's too easy to get them, I think the problem is it's too easy for lunatics to get them. The gun doesn't kill another person, a person fires the weapon which ultimatley kills the person. To get guns, I think one must pass a psychiatric test. If they are seen as unstable in any way, they cannot bear arms.

So it's ok to limit some people's rights but not others? Way to level the field...

Also, you have to remember that the US was founded on many beliefs; One of those is the right to bear arms and defend yourself.

That was a long time ago and a completely different situation. There is less of a need for guns now.

Criminals can always get weapons wether they are banned or not, that's why they are criminals.

And yet, I'd bet a significant percentage of gun crime happens with legally-purchased weapons.

The problem with taking away self-defense weapons for the "victims" in a country like the US would be devistating...seeing as we have much foreign trade and many, many enemies.

Many enemies? Sounds like the constant state of fear thing. Contrary to what the American media has to say, not everyone is out to get you.

ICantSpellDawg

03-02-2008, 20:44

It is related. The topic of this thread is school shootings. We have an example of many schools (entire districts) where affection is outlawed and other schools (entire states I think) where weapons are permitted. How long until the same school permits handguns and outlaws kissing? It's insanity. It's not human.

What kind of a message do you think this sends to young people? Because they do pick up on these things. Sitting around the breakfast table a girl can tell her mother she got detention for hugging her boyfriend at high school while she watches her brother put a 9mm with spare mags into a holster before heading off to college. It's... nuts.

I'll check that out. If true, it's as stupid here as it is anywhere.

Tell you one thing, though, Canada will land a man on the surface of the sun before we ever legalize handguns at school.

Fine - let us experiment

We are letting you experiment with gay marriage.

We are talking about universities - you are talking about 12 year olds. You bring up a stupid rule at a middle school and make it seem like the two things are comparable. They are not. Have you found a university with a "no hug rule"?

The reality is that there are not as many school shootings at middle schools that end with as many casualties as those in higher ed. Since the kids in those schools tend to be immature and there are not as many threats to their safety, guns should not be on the premises. The likelihood that those kids would turn a situation like virginia tech around is not very. There are more school shootings in highschools/universities where the merits of trained conceal carry are much more arguable. Possible reforms could include moving the 8th grade into high schools or special preparatory programs that train them for HS without as much shock. shooting list (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)

I like guns and wouldn't feel uncomfortable if people could carry them around after some training and background checks. In NY the laws are awful - we have some of the highest crime in the developed world and hardly anybody on long island has conceal carry licenses except for off duty cops. Criminals with guns outnumber law abiding citizens with them.

Certain states take the law a bit too far and could stand to be tempered a bit. My concern is my situation in my state - which I believe to be quasi-unconstitutional and foolish. I wish we had castle law here and a few people with guns on university campuses.

Ironside

03-02-2008, 21:09

Also, you have to remember that the US was founded on many beliefs; One of those is the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Criminals can always get weapons wether they are banned or not, that's why they are criminals.

I suspect the big difference is just that, that your gun culture affects the criminals in such a way that you average joe criminal gets a gun.

The problem with taking away self-defense weapons for the "victims" in a country like the US would be devistating...seeing as we have much foreign trade and many, many enemies. Im not saying we would all be re-living the Die Hard movies, but taking away guns when your enemies have them is not the smartest thing to do.

Foreign trade and many enemies? :inquisitive: Don't you uhm know that you got an army for that? And guns vs tanks won't end nice, especially if the guys with tanks does'nt care much about the collateral damage.

Privateerkev

04-03-2008, 00:19

Well, I noticed an NIU shooting thread here but it seems to have gotten wildly off-topic.

I am an NIU student. I walked by Cole not even half an hour before it happened. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to field them.

As for how things are lately, for most of us, it's gotten somewhat close to normal. The memorials on campus have been taken down. Our classmates are buried. The WBC was successfully kept off campus. (google Westboro Baptist Church if you don't know who I'm talking about.) The semester will go back a week to make up for the time we lost. Most everyone is just trying to get caught up in their studies.

The big arguments now are what to do with Cole Hall (it's remained closed since the shooting) and whether memorials should include a 6th cross for the shooter. (the 6th cross on the nearby Lutheran church property has been burned once already.)

As for gun-control, I'll save my comments for another thread. I have my own ideas about it but I rather talk about what happened at NIU in this thread.

KukriKhan

04-03-2008, 01:50

Thanks for the personal insights, Privateerkev.

Did the 6th crossburning raise much concern in the community or on campus?

Privateerkev

04-03-2008, 03:58

Thanks for the personal insights, Privateerkev.

Did the 6th crossburning raise much concern in the community or on campus?

No problem. People seem curious in general so I'm happy to help.

As for the 6th cross, it's mixed. If by concern, you mean concern over crime, then no. Mainly there is just heated debate over whether the shooter should be memorialized.

Some say he does not deserve to be in the same spot as the 5 victims. In the memorials that were on campus, any 6th cross/memorial marker would be moved or turned around.

Others say he was a victim and his families are definitely victims. Therefore he should get a cross.

The church that had their 6th cross burned argues from a religious standpoint that there should be a cross for the shooter.

And, just to show that these things bring out all sorts of people, the WBC argues that God has punished NIU for being a friendly LGBT atmosphere and that He actually sent the shooter.