You don’t say…
I’ve talked to at least two different older gentlemen, one of which was my dad, who used to bring their .22 rifles to the school with them and leave them in the cloak room so they could go hunting after class…I asked them both how many school shootings resulted…neither of them could remember a one. must be their memory fading, surely there was a shooting every week.
One of them did say the teacher told them not to touch those rifles until after school was out. maybe that was it.
Firstly, and most importantly, thank God your daughter is OK, Mr Bus Guy.
Secondly (and this is from an Englishman who’s been deprived of many freedoms by a nanny-knows-what’s-best-for-you state) I don’t believe you should take a constitutional right away for the actions of a few lunatics. (And they are few, in proportion).
My heart goes out to the bereaved parents but the fault lies squarely at the door of the loser who took their lives and nobody and nothing else.
Although you’re quite correct, that does not pass muster in the US, any more. We must have a reason, something to vilify. After all, if we accept the notion that random person x was the only thing causal, that’s uncomfortably close to personal responsibility.
Pick from any or all of the following: flouride, air pollution, rap music, video games, guns, foreigners, Republicans, global warming, ADHD, harsh toilet training, UV rays, rock n’ roll, fast food, SUVs, bad breath in dogs, ring around the collar, and the heartbreak of psoriasis.
The fault always lies outside the man in the glass.
So…are we just supposed to get rid of every gun on earth? As in “Hey everybody who owns a gun: please report to the big melting pot and toss your firearm in. Your firearms will soon be made into airplanes and bombs. Kthnxbye.”
And all of our police officers can carry feathers and tickle the bad men to death.
Well this is what you said originally:
Ellipsis in original. No mention of any other considerations such as the relative benefits of cars and guns. Just an unqualified statement that you are more likely to be killed by cars, as a total comment on the debate. Which is at least consistent because later you said:
The suggestion that absolute risk is the relevant consideration and consideration of potential benefit is a “stupid thing” to take into account is imbecilic. You are seriously trying to suggest that risk/benefit analysis is “stupid”?
There is nothing inherently illogical in the suggestion that the risk associated with guns is small compared to the potential benefit. Or the opposite. There is nothing inherently illogical in the suggestion that the risk associated with automobiles is large compared to the potential benefit. Or the opposite.
However, the suggestion that the risk associated with one thing should be discounted simply because it is a smaller risk than another thing, and that taking into account benefits of each thing is “stupid” is dumber than a box of rocks.
There is an enormous philosophical difference between regulating the risks one is allowed to take with others, and the risks one is allowed to take with oneself. Conflating the two is dumbass.
Forget cars vs guns. Alchohol vs guns. Less real benifit for alchohol, more deaths and violence because fo alchohol. More risk to other people as well.
And just as easy and effective to outlaw alchohol as it is to effect a gun ban, which is to say not at all easy.
Any world statistics on death by school shootingl?
I don’t and never had anything against this sort of argument. I may judge it differently, but I respect the argument. Xtisme’s argument is dumbass because he thinks that it is simply a matter of absolute risk, and bringing relevant benefits into the equation is “stupid”.
That’s the thing though, its not “madmen” with guns…its other STUDENTS with guns! Peer pressure and teasing have a long lasting affect on kids that can lead to mass murders years later.
My grandfather used to carry his rifle to school, and he would stack it in the corner where all the other kids stored their guns, and try to shoot some food (such as a rabbit or squirrel) on the way home each day. All that being said, IMO Society has degraded to the point where the average video-game-living constant-stimulation/instant-gratification kid can’t be trusted with a burnt-out match, let alone a .22 rifle.
There were accidents in the “early days” - statistics are very difficult to find, and may not even exist, but anecdotally speaking, from my research into the 1850-1950 era, firearms accidents among children keep coming up again and again in the literature. I can’t tell if it’s observer bias because it’s noteworthy, or my personal bias noting it as a point of interest, but while there may not be mention of kids shooting kids appearing very often, if at all, accidents were clearly happening.
I’m not picking you out, neutron, just wanted to clear something up.
Just for the record, I wasn’t trying to start a “debate” (what debate? There is no debate. There is entrenchment on both sides).
I was expressing my anger at how this would pan out. We will talk and talk and wring our hands about the craziness of this world and the Evil People in it, but nothing will change, nothing will be done, and this will happen again. And again-it’s almost to the point where if someone doesn’t die in one of these, it’s not going to be headline news. Supposedly the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Me, I’d like to do something different to actually get different results. This tragedy arc is wearisome on the soul.
I did not say guns=evil and bad. I said easy accessibility contributed to this problem. IMO, that is a huge problem. And a whole mess of people came in here and reinforced my opinion. Lobsang captured it best–I completely agree. Now, if only those same pro-gun people would admit that this is a terribly easy(too easy) thing to do (killing lots of people with their toy of choice), I’d have more respect for their attachement.
I’d apologize to MBG for the “hijack”, but I didn’t hijack the thread–the responses that came after me, defending guns by way of arguing about kerosene, cars, and nuclear bombs etc (how bizarre) did.
One thing I don’t understand (but I do-this feeds an essential narcissism on the part of the gunman), is why these losers don’t just off themselves with their gun at home, alone. I feel sorry for his family, and feel for all those that lost their lives, their innocence and their security yesterday.
Oh, come now - you quite clearly set it off. I’m no pro-gun nut myself, but the OP’s own daughter had just come within five minutes of being present at a deadly shooting; for the very first post to dive headlong towards what it means for the gun debate without even the slightest concession to the fact that this was actually personal for the OP was, well, pretty crass at the very least. And to believe that no-one would respond to that sort of post is quite unbelievably naive.
It can’t be the guns- that is, it can’t only be the guns. The guns make it easier, but something else is going on. This thing is in the zeitgeist now- we can’t get it back. It’s like self-immolation or suicide bombing. We need to figure out what makes these kids seize on this idea.
I await the inevitable revelation that this shooter was on carelessly administered antidepressants.
Wow, this guy is OLD for a school shooter. They’re saying he’s a 27-yo grad student.
Completely outlawing all firearms will keep them out of the hands of criminals no more than the complete outlawing of recreational drugs keeps crack and heroin out of the hands of addicts.
The only reason there aren’t clandestine machine shops making guns and ammo is because right now there doesn’t have to be (easier to steal, buy on the black market, etc…).
Outlawed guns wouldn’t even have to be smuggled into the country. All the materials needed to make one are available anywhere. People with only a minimal knowledge of tool & die could make one. The ingredients needed to make ammo is easily available. A complete and total ban would only result in a multi-million (billion?) dollar underground economy, just like the drug trade.
So, whatcha going to do? Ban some guns? The remaining available will be used by criminals. Ban all guns? Then eventually only criminals will have them.
Violent nutballs are like the poor: they’ll always be among us.
We shouldn’t outlaw booze or drugs, and should maintain or even loosen gun restrictions. I gotta be one of the few people who believe that and doesn’t also want to eliminate the Fed :dubious:
Crap. I have a sister who works at NIU and her son is an engineering student.
I agree. For example, it galls me to no end that I know the bastard’s name even though I refer to him as “the asshole who shot Lennon”. We’ll know more about this shooter than the victims.
Sure, but look what they do to their cheese.
This is actually a badass idea for a story. Thanks for giving me the idea.
From the New York Times:
I’m mystified. Why so many school shootings all of the sudden? Could there really be a link with antidepressants?
I used to be a classic, gun control liberal, but debates on this board, coupled with my views on the Constitution, particularly the bill of rights, (not to mention a certain radicalization of my views brought about by the abuses of the Bush era) have put me in the other camp. If we’re going to regulate guns, we’re going to have to amend the constitution, and I’d have to be damn sure the new language would be an improvement over the old before I could support something like that. The real solution is to stop fucking shooting each other.
But why has there been so many mass shootings? The shooting in Memphis last week was just (ha! “just”) a personal argument that escalated into a shooting. That, to me, is a different phenomenon than the mass murder that seems to happen every few months now. I imagine the juvenile gun violence that Una found in her research falls into a similar category. These mass shootings are something new. So what has changed?