5% of the world's population, 70% of the world's school shootings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Printable View
5% of the world's population, 70% of the world's school shootings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkarinen
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
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.
That's a lot, but what about guns
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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
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.Quote:
"Success is only measured by how high you bounce when you hit rock bottom"
Why don't you compile a list of "non-notable" shootings and see if the ratio changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
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.Quote:
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.
"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:Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
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?
How exactly would we be able to decide which of the "some" get to have concealed weapons at school?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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%.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
I wasn't picturing anything complicated ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
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
I was just thinking about getting a concealed permit and then I realized that I live in NY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yeah, give A lefty Canadian too much coffee and tell him kids are carrying handguns to school and watch the language flow, eh? :hippie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
But then again, I still think it`s an insanely and outrageously stupid thing to do.
(Breathe in...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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...)
Faulty. You made a claim that was not backed up by facts. Until it is backed up by facts it is just rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
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.
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.
The Japanese might argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
...or are you joking.
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. 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. 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There is, perhaps, something worthwhile in the article's "external links"...
Violence in school: A Few Orientations for a Worldwide Scientific DebateFrom 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:Quote:
There have been fifteen massacres causing 177 deaths in schools since 1964, including five in the USA.
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::shrug:Quote:
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.
Your reaction? Why, yes it is.Quote:
Absolutely, without question, one of the most idiotic, asinine, uncivilized, backwards, brick-headed, blisteringly stupid things in existence.
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
What happens when they miss?
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'll get right on that, your worship.
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