Another school shooting

1. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

   Drugs. Drugs are what is happening to America. All the kids are getting put on Ritalin or Adderall or even prozac! It is making them crazy. This is the true issue, but no one wants to look at it. We need to stop giving our kids these drugs... these legal prescription pharmaceuticals.
   Ever hear the phrase, "Psychiatry kills?" Boy does it!

   replyreport
   1. 64

      LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I have to agrre with you. Giving out medication like candy to children and adults for every little problem is not the solution. Also, social integration is a key part of living in a civilized world. All too often kids these days are either making FAKE friends online and missing out on what true socialization is, or just staying so attached to their electronic equipment, (phones, computers and such) that they are missing out on experiencing what REAL life is!

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Ritalin interrups the REM sleep cycle. without that Rapid Eye Movement during sleep one does not get the deep sleep needed by the brain for full mental and physical recovery. How can these kids grow up typical? (pc word for normal.)

         replyreport
2. 79

   LeanManposted 11 years ago

   I owned a gun in the UK, which is pretty difficult to do with the licensing requirements. I was required to keep my gun locked up within a metal cabinet disassembled. The ammunition which I had - very small amount I hasten to add - was in a separate cabinet in a different part of the house locked up! It would have been pretty difficult for anyone to get access to it even if they wanted to.
   
   Currently I am living in the Philippines and many people around where I live own guns, they even have "homemade" revolvers. They are not allowed to carry guns but I have on several occasions taken guns from customers coming into my bar there - the reason they are carrying the gun - "just in case they need it!" Same as with great big knives that they carry also!
   Several times I have broken up fights where the guys are carrying knives - I closed my bar for 3 months earlier this year because someone got stabbed and allowed it to be reopened under a manager a few months back so I don't have to be there with my family.
   I was there a couple of weeks ago when a minor argument started - I broke it up by picking the two aggressors up by the scruff of their necks and throwing them out of the door (It helps being 6 feet 2, 100KG and a holder of two black belts!)
   While I was outside making sure that the two drunken idiots left one guy from the table that they had started with came outside and pulled out a gun right beside me!!!! I grabbed him and held the gun down until the two guys had made a run for it - but as soon as I released this guy who was now also being held by his friends he started running down the street shooting blindly into the night in the hope of shooting these boys!! He was a local policeman!!!!!!!
   The culture here is to carry a weapon of some sort, if they have a problem they will use it and worry about the problems later. But if they did not have the weapons they could not use them, if the crime of carrying a gun without a permit was properly enforced then there would be fewer carried..
   
   Anyway my point is that if people can't get to guns they can't use them!! Criminals will always get them illegally - but then they are not usually the ones that go around shooting innocent kids in school.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good point!

      replyreport
3. 58

   thiruselvamkposted 11 years ago

   ABSOLUTELY HEART BREAKING and I am in another corner of the world, a grandfather. I am following CNN news fills............. but what is the use, I ask myself over and over again. Innocent children have become victims of bullets. Committed adults as teachers and a mother fell with bullet shots. The quick remark as "WHAT IS BECOMING OF AMERICA",is an escape clause. Nothing is wrong with America. So many shooting sprees and deaths over the last 10 years, and yet no lines drawn or laws passed regarding guns ownership. If all the Governors and leaders of all the states of USA decide on a law to impose on guns ownership; gun sales; guns register and accountability, one can then expect some form of better safety for the innocent.

   replyreport
4. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Don, you know better. You can't just look at data that hasn't been controlled for any variables and get useful conclusions from it. This is why I usually don't talk about other countries at all, because it's mostly worthless.
   
   Not only that, but you REJECT the only dataset that has a consistent framework for comparison(US over time and States over time as gun ownership/carry numbers increase).
   
   Those numbers are the closest you can get to controlled without actually adjusting data.
   
   If you were correct that more guns means more deaths, then ALL of those states should have rates going UP when more people buy and carry guns. Not down.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So we should ignore global data, because data on firearms from outside the U.S. is "mostly worthless". Wow, way to dismiss evidence contrary to your argument. Unfortunately it's complete nonsense.
      
      Granted, global data is difficult to compile, hence the virtual army of people in the U.N, WHO, EU etc. dedicated to the task. But that doesn't mean global data is worthless. Global data on health, education, crime etc. helps inform the process of developing domestic policies. Dismissing it as "mostly worthless" is short sighted.
      
      And your assertion that local data somehow invalidates a global trend doesn't make sense. The fact it's snowing in Alaska doesn't mean data on global warming is worthless. Likewise if localised effects of gun ownership vary from a global trend, that doesn't mean there isn't a global correlation or trend, and that it shouldn't form part of the discussion. There is, and it should. Do statistics at State level show something different? If they do, then working out the reason could in fact be part of working out how to improve the situation.
      
      If, as data suggests, developed countries with the lowest levels of gun ownership also have the lowest rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population among other developed countries. And the converse is indicated for developed countries with high levels of gun ownership. Then that's significant. And notwithstanding your apparent allergy to globally compiled statistics, the data does seem to suggest that. Dismissing that data out of hand because it's messy, and difficult to compile, and difficult to analyse is short sighted to the point of foolishness. Surely looking at all relevant data on this subject, regardless of the challenges involved in doing so, is of utmost importance.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Don, you ignored most of what I said. Maybe we should number our points, so we can easily keep track and respond?
         
         1 - Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables? You have ignored that concept multiple times, and you still think that comparisons with different frameworks are valid.
         
         2 - As to your example about snow and global trends in weather, that's not applicable to guns. It's true that the weather in one location isn't a good indicator of the worldwide weather pattern, and that is because all local weather is a product of the global weather system. Gun violence, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. Global gun-violence trends are a product of individual, local actions.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            If I'm not addressing your argument, it's because it keeps shifting. So yes, let's number your points, so you can help me clarify which ones actually form part of your argument..
            
            1. "My numbers come from (Mostly) the WHO 2012 reports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co…death_rate"
            Does all your global data come from this page, or is there another source you are using for global data?
            
            2. ". . . you'll agree, it's worthless to compare datasets with VASTLY different contributing factors"
            If the above is true, then your source in point 1 is unreliable, unless you have another data source. Are you, and if so, what is it?
            
            3. "You can't just look at data that hasn't been controlled for any variables and get useful conclusions from it."
            See above.
            
            4. "Switzerland has as high a rate of gun ownership as the US, but a homicide rate that is one of the lowest in the world".
            Are you using the Wiki/ WHO data above as evidence for this point? If so, doesn't point 2 and 3 make that data unreliable? Therefore, by your own standards, isn't this point unsupported. If you are not using the Wiki/ WHO data, then on what grounds are you making this point?
            
            5. "That chart has to be at least a decade old."
            I agree, the data in this chart may be a decade old.
            
            6. "I don't want data from 2007 or later, because that doesn't prove anything. I want data for before that"
            If the above chart is at least a decade old, then based on your apparent interest in pre 2007 data, can I assume you accept the data on the chart? (That data falsifies point 4).
            
            7. ". . . local weather is a product of the global weather system. Gun violence, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. Global gun-violence trends are a product of individual, local actions."
            Gun violence is not just a product of individual, local actions. It's also a product of basic human nature which, beneath the varying cultural and social layers, is typical the world over.
            
            8. "Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables?"
            Yes, and I don't disagree that controlling variables is important. I do disagree with the idea that comparing global data is worthless because every variable cannot be controlled for. For example all global data indicates an association between higher levels of homicide (in general) and low human and economic development. Ignoring such information on the grounds that every variable was not controlled for would be foolish. Such data, however imperfect, can prompt us towards asking the most useful questions.
            
            Can you see why I'm confused by points 1 - 6. Your points are are inconsistent and contradictory. Moreover, point 4 suggests you are happy with global data when it supports your argument. But a comparison of global data is suddenly "worthless" when it doesn't support your argument. That's disingenuous and doesn't aid any sensible discussion. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how it looks. Feel free to clarify any points you think I may have misunderstood or missed.

            replyreport
5. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   No Don, I've always admitted that comparing countries is worthless. The only reason I brought it up was to show exactly that to some people who insist on doing it.
   
   You can't say 'It's still worthwhile, even if we don't control for variables'. That's just false, it's worthless without controlling for variables. 100%, statistically and scientifically, worthless.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You told luciddreams his argument was wrong because Switzerland has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. You did not tell him he is wrong because you think comparisons of global data are worthless. Instead you made a claim based on a comparison of global data. Here's a reminder:
      
      "Switzerland has as high a rate of gun ownership as the US, but a homicide rate that is one of the lowest in the world. Does that conclusively prove that higher gun ownership rates lower crime? No. Crime isn't dependent on weapons!"
      
      Likewise when I presented data suggesting  a correlation between gun homicide rates and levels of gun ownership, you said my figures are "wrong", citing "(mostly) the WHO" as your source, and linking to this wiki page, which is a comparison of global data. Again you made no suggestion that you think global data comparisons are worthless. Instead you repeated your claim about Switzerland which itself is based on a global comparison of data.
      
      When I challenged your argument with my own comparison of global data, only then did you suggest to me that comparing global data is "worthless".
      
      I have to say, maintaining an argument based on global data comparisons when those comparisons seem favourable to your argument, then suggesting such comparisons are worthless when they seem unfavourable to your argument, is probably not the best way to maintain credibility in a discussion, regardless of whether that was your intention.
      
      One clear and up front statement from yourself about what you think of global data comparisons would have mooted the entire discussion and saved much time, as I'm not interested in a discussion about the issues of global statistical analysis.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Im not going to try to prove any particular argument any further. The only thing that I would like to say is, according to Fox News earlier today, there are 3000 accidental deaths involving children each year from guns. We do not need assault rifles for anything EXCEPT mass shootings and the military.
         For those who just have to keep guns in their home, keep them locked up tight so we can begin to reduce these types of incidents.

         replyreport
         1. 54

            whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What is an assault rifle?

            replyreport
            1. 64

               LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Do you really need clarification buddy? How about any gun that can be equiped to fire automatically? Especially rifles with high caliber rounds. You don't get it or what? Why would we as citizens need these? Are these good for hunting.....that's not sport!

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, apparently we do need clarification.
                  
                  When is the last time you heard about someone using that kind of assault rifle in a mass shooting?

                  replyreport
         2. 84

            Marcy Goodfleischposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Your point about locking up guns is just one reason the (absurd) idea of arming the teachers would never work. If teachers had guns, they'd have to be kept locked up and unloaded to avoid accidents. When a shooter blasts down the door to enter a school, there's little enough time to get the kids to safety (the main priority, right?). So the gun enthusiasts expect teachers to have time to retrieve guns from a safe, locked place, unlock the safety mechanism, load them, hunt down the shooter, and somehow be great marksmen as well.  I'm not sure who watches the kids while this is going on. 
            
            This is a case of blaming the victims - the school administrators and teachers weren't armed, so it's all their fault. Yeah. Right.

            replyreport
            1. 54

               whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Why would they have to be locked up? The police don't keep their weapons locked up they are on full display. Teachers can conceal them as well as any other person can. Your argument doesn't work.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Kids take guns that are not locked up and kill eachother.....c'mon!

                  replyreport
                  1. 54

                     whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     They do, they take the guns right off the police officers hip and kill? How often does that happen? How often would it happen if the gun is concealed, I carry one everyday and nobody has ever taken my weapon.

                     replyreport
6. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   I guess all this arguing about gun control helps everyone avoid thinking about the 20 dead 6 and 7 year olds.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      whoisitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I for one don't want to think about it I have avoided any blathering from the media whores.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's sad, but is refusing to talk going to make things better?
      
      Should we never talk about guns, considering the 800 firearm homicides between ages 1 and 17 that happen every year?

      replyreport
   3. 82

      Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I understand the sentiment of your comment. For me it's even more of an imperative that we have these discussions now to try to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future.

      replyreport
7. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Sorry I wasn't more clear Don... this comes up often, and sometimes I explain things more clearly than others.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Okay, but your objections to global comparisons of data are irrelevant. Domestic studies show the same. This one, from the Harvard School of Public Health, looks at State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership. Summary:
      
      "Analysis that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In this analysis, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."
      
      Whether it is global data, or domestic data, controlled for different variables, the story is the same. There is a correlation between levels of gun ownership and gun homicide rate. Continual denial of that fact is futile. Besides, what purpose does that denial serve, other than to delay any sensible discussion about reducing the risk from firearms to society at large?

      replyreport
8. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

   testing testing one two three.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's completely ridiculous to suggest a teacher should be armed. It's hard enough for teachers to gain their student's trust, without carrying weapons to further alienate them. I come from a family of three teachers, all elementary. Many of them have students who come to kindergarten and do not even know their ABC's, or how to count to 20! Their parents work all day and they are pushed off on babysitters who have no responsibility for the children's education. It's the American way, have lots of stuff but no time for your children, or consider them your "stuff" too.  If you have a grandparent or relative who cares and loves the child, they may be getting quality time. But normally they are with a person who "watches" kids because they need money and are home all day, either with their own little ones, or for reasons which may indicate they shouldn't be caring for anyone besides themselves. I live in a small town, and even 20 yrs. ago a person had to be "buzzed" into any locked door of the school, and if the secretary or principal didn't know the person by name, a custodian answered the door. Doors closed and locked immediately after teachers brought the students into the building, and could not be opened unless it was by someone inside. I suggest guards in schools, two at least. We have a lot of men and women out of work right now. I've read many arguments for and against guns, and admit to moving a little on the issue. But nobody needs rounds of ammunition and automatic weapons that shoot over and over again. The Constitution is outdated, and likely could use an overhaul, life has changed a lot in hundreds of years.

      replyreport