What should we do in response to the school shooting?
I'm so sick of hearing arguments about guns and mental illness and bad parenting. What school meetings or city meetings would be a good place for people to go to express their concern?
A visit to the school board meeting might be reasonable. But whatever venue is chose how about proposing well thought out solutions with a good chance of success? Preferably with some real world experience somewhere showing it worked?
Just going to a meeting, anywhere or with anyone, and saying "I'm concerned that children are dying: you have to do something!" is useless; they already know that.Another option for some people: Offer constructive solutions and quit attacking or undermining people who want gun safety.
You may be (and apparently are) far more concerned that people aren't shot than with not being killed at all. I'm not - the overriding concern is that the murders stop, whether by gun, car, knives or anything else - and that means that the current furor over those terrible "assault rifles", responsible for less than .03 of the total killings, is a red herring.
You would put our resources and efforts into trying (and failing, IMO) to prevent less than 300 of the 12,000 murders each year: I would prefer to put those things into saving thousands of lives each year.
Others will make up our minds for us, of course, but for me those people wanting "gun safety" (read: no guns) are far more interested in getting guns out of the hands of the citizenry than in saving lives. They won't say so of course - that would be terribly unpolitical and would alienate millions - but there really can't be any other reason to squander precious resources in return for such a tiny result (it if works at all; history and experiences says it won't).
Your urge to discuss problems at schools or city meeting places is actually quite quaint.
Perhaps, we always see that mental illness and gun control are the reasons of these. We can still understand and try to address mental illnesses. However, the vulnerability of the mentally-ill to handle a gun is that US doesn't have a proper gun control policies. So why do gun control is still not happening? One of the reasons are the gun corporations such as NRA, who spent millions of dollars in order to lobby politicians of their advocacy to stop gun control, even Trump benefited from these. So as long as politicians value more of a money than the lives of many people, then gun control will never happened.
Which of the 200+ US gun control policies are improper? Which ones should be changed or added?
Complaining that whatever we've done isn't working doesn't help much; we all already know that. Neither does complaining that the NRA spent millions in lobbying congress or a claim that Trump benefited from it.
We need to stop putting children on drugs for attention deficit problems. We must work with them AS THEY NATURALLY ARE. The mass killing shooters had all been on drugs. Their brains and their psyches were all messed up.
These kids don't get enough REM sleep for one thing due to the effects of Adderal or Ritalin.
Most parents put their kids on drugs as soon as they get a couple of Ds or Fs on their report cards.
Horrors!!!! Not doing well in school … theres gotta be a magic pill for that.
Well, no just the opposite.
Guns don't go nuts because they stopped taking their medication that mommy gave them throughout their whole childhoods as soon as they had a say in the matter, or got tired of taking the stupid pills.
White males do.… expressing our concern would be good to do. Expressing concern would be to revolutionize how we deal with children. Expressing concern would be to try to understand a natural approach to living and realize how far we are from natural living in our laziness and our lack of love for nature and our children. Expressing concern would be for parents and teachers and community leaders to set good examples …
I guess there's no way to express concern in group settings. This is due to the fact that communities are not motivated to action because communities don't function as units. Modern people are impersonal and independent. We don't know the neighbor across the street let alone, fellow "community" members.
Its because of the transportation system. If there were no cars, we would have more of a sense of community.I think the idea of arming teachers is a dumb and certainly sends the wrong message.
Heaven forbid that I touch upon the "sacred" 2nd Amendment
I guess one deterrent may be metal detectors at entrances in all schools, security like one would find at airports. The new high schools will not be like "Room 222".
What are the explanations conservatives give for the violence in our society? Muzzle the First Amendment to extol the 2nd? That is dead in the water for me.... The 'genie' is "out of the bottle", rightwinger, and its not going back.
The issue is that violence is a primary feature of American culture. The homicidal, insane and what have you will always among us. We need to make it difficult for any single person to produce such body counts with relative ease.
Short of McVeigh's action in 1995, what other weapon of choice has been associated with high body counts?There is your Jeopardy question.
I don't like the idea of designating those between 18-21 as second class citizens. I consider everybody over the age of 18 in the age of the majority, with all rights and privileges associated with that status. So, the idea of such restrictions on access to firearms on that basis does not sit well with me."We need to make it difficult for any single person to produce such body counts with relative ease."
You mean like buying a bag of fertilizer and 5 gallons of diesel?
Or by renting a small truck?
Or a gallon of gasoline and a pack of matches?
It's really cool to pretend that if a psyco can't easily lay their hands on a preferred weapon they'll just go home and have a bowl of ice cream instead of finding another way to accomplish their goal, but when the body count goes up as a result of that pretense do left wingers feel bad? Apparently not, because all they'll do is repeat the same thing again! Been doing it for years without ever attempting to examine or address the real problem - no reason to think they will ever change. You said it yourself - "The issue is that violence is a primary feature of American culture.", and your "solution" is to pretend that if they don't have easy access to a semi-automatic (black) rifle they won't kill anybody.
"Short of McVeigh's action in 1995, what other weapon of choice has been associated with high body counts?"
In Australia, it's the lowly match. In the US it's a handgun (that is illegal to own in the places where they are used the most)...to the tune of about 8,000 murders per year. You won't find a higher body count anywhere outside of a war zone, and probably not there. On the other hand we can cry about fake assault rifles that are used to destroy less than 300 lives per year because it's a popular cause that soothes our emotional state.Well, Wilderness, it was more than a "a bag of fertilizer", just a bit more. McVeigh bought 4000 pounds of the Ammonium Nitrate, I would say that is more than just "one bag". Today that quantity purchase should alert law enforcement to have a look. As I am a big believer in the power of deterrent, I supported a Ammonium Nitrate Security Program that required those selling, buying or transferring 25 pounds or more of the substance to register with the government so that they may be screened against U.S. terror watch lists. And believe me, domestic terrorism is just a frightening as the foreign variety. It is just one of those ideas that while not making such attacks impossible in all cases, makes it more difficult. Just one of those things that make such attacks in the future require higher levels of sophistication with increased risk of exposure and detection.
-----------------------
"It's really cool to pretend that if a psyco can't easily lay their hands on a preferred weapon they'll just go home and have a bowl of ice cream instead of finding another way to accomplish their goal, but when the body count goes up as a result of that pretense do left wingers feel bad?"
-------------------------
The point is where things can be made difficult for the psycho with minimum infringement upon the rights of the innocent, why not proceed?
---------------------------------------
"The issue is that violence is a primary feature of American culture.", and your "solution" is to pretend that if they don't have easy access to a semi-automatic (black) rifle they won't kill anybody.
-------------------------------------
Perhaps one man might not be allowed an advantageous position to kill scores of people. Back on the bump stock for instance. Yes, they can be created with a 3D printer, but I can make my own moonshine as well. The fact that the possession or sale is illegal acts as a deterrent that I can certainly live with and the gun advocates should have no issue with... It won't stop everyone, but the deterrent effect is there for many and it is better than doing absolutely nothing. The killing is not likely to stop, but it is not easy for one man to kill scores of people with a machete or blow darts...
-----------------------------------
"In Australia, it's the lowly match. In the US it's a handgun (that is illegal to own in the places where they are used the most)...to the tune of about 8,000 murders per year. You won't find a higher body count anywhere outside of a war zone, and probably not there. On the other hand we can cry about fake assault rifles that are used to destroy less than 300 lives per year because it's a popular cause that soothes our emotional state."
------------------------------------------
So why are Americans so homicidal, aside from the means of murder? You have made your point before about the exaggeration of the influence of the firearm on American crime rates. But why do you think that society is so violent relative to other western democracies?"The point is where things can be made difficult for the psycho with minimum infringement upon the rights of the innocent, why not proceed?"
I repeat myself, but "Why"? Because you hope they'll give up the idea and stay home eating ice cream? History says they won't, however much you'd like to believe they will.
You can make moonshine, yes. Either with a tiny still that makes a bottle for you or with a giant one that makes enough to sell. I don't really think we'll see people making bump stocks with a printer in quantities to flood the market, but then that wasn't the point.
"But why do you think that society is so violent relative to other western democracies?"
You tell me. I've posted a dozen or more thoughts, and asked for more a dozen times as well and very few people have responded. I don't recall seeing anything at all from you, either in the "why" or in solutions to stop those "whys". Nobody cares is my guess - it's much more PC to simply take guns away and pretend all will be hunky dory after we do it. And then take more and take more until there are none left. Whereupon we will wonder why there are still so many bodies, but hey - that's down the road and we'll worry about that after the people are disarmed and those scary gun things are all gone. Gotta get the priorities straight, after all, and taking guns is far more important than saving lives. Easier, too, and nobody needs one after all."I repeat myself, but "Why"? Because you hope they'll give up the idea and stay home eating ice cream? History says they won't, however much you'd like to believe they will."
-----------------
If I put enough impediments in their path, yes, rather than risk certain discovery and prosecution they will stay home and eat ice cream
-------------------
"You tell me. I've posted a dozen or more thoughts, and asked for more a dozen times as well and very few people have responded. I don't recall seeing anything at all from you, either in the "why" or in solutions to stop those "whys". Nobody cares is my guess - it's much more PC to simply take guns away and pretend all will be hunky dory after we do it. And then take more and take more until there are none left. Whereupon we will wonder why there are still so many bodies, but hey - that's down the road and we'll worry about that after the people are disarmed and those scary gun things are all gone. Gotta get the priorities straight, after all, and taking guns is far more important than saving lives. Easier, too, and nobody needs one after all."
The research and answer to this question is deserving of its own unique discussion. The truth about this society may be more than many would want to hear or acknowledge. I will have to make a mental note to light up this fire."If I put enough impediments in their path, yes, rather than risk certain discovery and prosecution they will stay home and eat ice cream"
We very much disagree here. Looking at the history of both our country and others that doesn't happen. Perhaps the biggest reason for that is that 1) other weapons are chosen and 2) mass murderers don't care if they are found. We have not, for instance, failed to find the perpetrator of a single school shooting or mass murderer in the US yet. They are there in order to be found.
There is also the wee matter of these "impediments" and their effect on everyone else in the country. When the expected result is either negative or non-existent that effect becomes of paramount importance.
"The research and answer to this question is deserving of its own unique discussion. The truth about this society may be more than many would want to hear or acknowledge. I will have to make a mental note to light up this fire."
Good luck with that - just as I said, no one cares. If reducing the death toll means changing something within themselves, or requires sacrifice on their part, then it is ignored. Only when others will pay the price is the effort worthwhile. Sad, but that's what I see."If I put enough impediments in their path, yes, rather than risk certain discovery and prosecution they will stay home and eat ice cream"
We very much disagree here. Looking at the history of both our country and others that doesn't happen. Perhaps the biggest reason for that is that 1) other weapons are chosen and 2) mass murderers don't care if they are found. We have not, for instance, failed to find the perpetrator of a single school shooting or mass murderer in the US yet. They are there in order to be found.
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, we certainly do disagree, but isn't that always the rub?
How many "weapons" are available to do what McVeigh did in Oklahoma city, looking at the sheer scale? The law makes it difficult to acquire all the TNT and C4 you want without attracting someone's attention. Such is the case now, with ammonium nitrate. McVeigh tried to escape and was captured, he was homicidal but not suicidal. As you say, most of those involved in the school homicides were captured or killed themselves. But there are a percentage of people who commit these crimes and do not want to be found or captured, McVeigh is one example.
--------------------------------------------
There is also the wee matter of these "impediments" and their effect on everyone else in the country. When the expected result is either negative or non-existent that effect becomes of paramount importance.
-------------------------------------------------
The idea that the expected result of creating the impediments as being totally ineffective is something that you cannot substantiate. In other words, 'that is what you think'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good luck with that - just as I said, no one cares. If reducing the death toll means changing something within themselves, or requires sacrifice on their part, then it is ignored. Only when others will pay the price is the effort worthwhile. Sad, but that's what I see."
--------------------------------
I will have a look and determine what it is that I see.....
Hi Cred, I also think the age increase is an insult. But, I don't see what good metal detectors would do with regards to a mass shooter. They surely won't stop one, and I can't see a deterrent value either. Just more pablum.
As for arming teachers ... as proposed I think it is a half-baked idea.
GAMetal detectors would keep a student from bringing a gun or knife to school (unless it is plastic) and using it later in the day. But it would have to be set pretty darn sensitive, and at the rate students pour through the door it would take several of them. And a guard right there.
Yes they would do that Wilderness, but how many of the school shootings have started with a gun the shooter smuggled into school? I don't know that answer, but I don't recall that being the scenario for any.
GASeems I can recall one or two, but they were not mass murders. A student went in looking for a specific person(s), not to just fling bullets everywhere.
I suppose an "airlock" arrangement could be built with a metal detector, which might have stopped the Florida killer, but I don't really see hundreds of kids going through it in a matter of minutes, either. And it would certainly make emergency exits problematical, whether from a shooter or a fire!
You know GA, I was always Po-ed by the idea during that 18-21 period for me, why I had to be eligible for the draft, yet I could neither vote nor have a drink? The "adults" always had the excuse that the responsibility levels were different, but I never bought it.
It is like you said, the circumstances surrounding many of the shootings may have made such a checkpoint meaningless. But, if you think about it, what if the shooter and his weapon could be identified at the checkpoint with an armed officer on hand? Perhaps, this may well be a time when 'the good guy with the gun could subdue the bad guy with one". It has got to be better than allowing students packing a veritable arsenal to just walk in and sashay down the halls unchallenged in any way?Ummm. Just a passing ugly thought, but what keeps a student from breaking in at night, hiding an arsenal in their locker, and coming in to school the next day, right past the detector and cop. Hadn't considered that, but it's an obvious work-around.
I think I would be more towards armed guards and teachers than a passive detector. Look at what airports use and compare it to what we could do in schools. I don't see us copying airports for their detection gear and search rooms.Ummm. Just a passing ugly thought, but what keeps a student from breaking in at night, hiding an arsenal in their locker, and coming in to school the next day, right past the detector and cop. Hadn't considered that, but it's an obvious work-around.
-------------------------
But, it is a pretty easy 'work around' to thwart. So, some simple minded 19 year old is able to evade silent and audible alarms, closed circuit TV, motion detectors that should be activated at every public building after hours? Many people have this kind of stuff at their residences, nothing prohibitive here. It is not like the old days where a mischievous student can just open up a window from the outside and just climb in, you know. So, how many 'criminal geniuses' are going to go through so much trouble?
-------------------
I think I would be more towards armed guards and teachers than a passive detector. Look at what airports use and compare it to what we could do in schools. I don't see us copying airports for their detection gear and search rooms.
-----------------
A school should be a place of learning not a fortress. I can't imagine how silly it would be for a teacher strapped up like Bat Masterson teaching 11 year olds. Who is going to train all the educators in the art of gun slinging? The presence of this draconian but necessary security arrangement should be kept to a minimum. Armed guards at entry and exit points should be enough. I don't believe that we have to take this to a security level identical to that found at airports, but we may well have to move more firmly in that direction."But, it is a pretty easy 'work around' to thwart."
Of course it's easy to thwart. All we need is motion detectors throughout the school, cameras everywhere, recorders and some one to check them all before school starts. All we need to do is turn our schools into that "fortress" you mention - something I agree is not what we really want to see, but until we figure out that killers kill people, it is a fix that will protect schools if not theaters, restaurants, concerts, meeting halls, churches or even busy sidewalks. Anywhere people congregate.
But there is zero need, and you will get zero positive response to exaggerations like the Bat Masterson scenario. No one is proposing each teacher be covered in ammo belts and packing a machine gun - just a concealed weapon for those teachers that volunteer to be trained to protect their students. At least that's my picture of it - others may want each teacher to become Rambo, complete with giant knife in the belt.
I believe you will find that if psychotic killers decide that airports will be the target rather than schools they will do as much damage there as they are in the schools. Problem is that until the building is armed and armored like a prison we cannot keep a killer from having a few minutes to work in, and those few minutes are all they require to ring up a body toll.Of course it's easy to thwart. All we need is motion detectors throughout the school, cameras everywhere, recorders and some one to check them all before school starts. All we need to do is turn our schools into that "fortress" you mention
------------------------------------
Yes, and the armed security guard should be checking the recorder everyday before school begins. I have motion detectors at the point of the lighting near the garage, no big deal, yes? I don't consider that turning my house into a fortress. The fact that such technology exists in every public building should not make one shudder? Since you don't want to take the guns, we have to be more vigilant in other areas to compensate. Did you not expect to make this trade off or pay the price of the proliferation of firearms?
-------------------------------------------
"- something I agree is not what we really want to see, but until we figure out that killers kill people, it is a fix that will protect schools if not theaters, restaurants, concerts, meeting halls, churches or even busy sidewalks. Anywhere people congregate."
---------------------------------------------------
Everybody walking around with guns, (now that is rich) concealed or otherwise, waiting for an opportunity to use them, is hardly civilized. "Dirty Harry" is a fictional character, there is no teacher or any human being that can really be prepared for any outcome regarding an armed assailant. It does not protect anyone, but will probably increase casualties.
----------------------------------------
"But there is zero need, and you will get zero positive response to exaggerations like the Bat Masterson scenario. No one is proposing each teacher be covered in ammo belts and packing a machine gun - just a concealed weapon for those teachers that volunteer to be trained to protect their students. At least that's my picture of it - others may want each teacher to become Rambo, complete with giant knife in the belt."
---------------------------------
I did not expect a positive response, I did not expect you to be receptive to my attitude about this issue in any case. So, that has to be irrelevant. Call it a 'lefty reflex', but I don't like the idea of teachers doubling as gun slingers teaching my kids. My 'picture' is a totally different channel.
----------------------------
"I believe you will find that if psychotic killers decide that airports will be the target rather than schools they will do as much damage there as they are in the schools. Problem is that until the building is armed and armored like a prison we cannot keep a killer from having a few minutes to work in, and those few minutes are all they require to ring up a body toll."
At the airports, as for anywhere else, there is nothing more dangerous than a homicidal maniac who has no regard for his or her own life. But do we go back to a pre-1971 scenario, where people are just allowed in airports and aboard planes without security inspection? How is that going to help? You keep missing the point of the importance of deterrent. If such precautions preclude 50 percent of the homicidal maniacs, that is better than allowing them all to get through. And, in this dangerous world, having all these security and surveillance programs is a small price to pay to stop that 50%You have a motion detector. Do you have one in every room, including bathrooms? Do you have cameras in every room? That's what we're talking about, not a detector/camera or two at the front door. And yes, it is turning a grade school into a prison. If that's what is necessary, then do it and hang the cost (billions).
"Everybody walking around with guns, (now that is rich) concealed or otherwise, waiting for an opportunity to use them, is hardly civilized. "
But killing kids in school is civilized? Wanting a "civilized" answer that is pleasant is not going to help.
"It does not protect anyone, but will probably increase casualties. "
On what do you base that "probably"? A completely unsupported opinion? And if it does - if "friendly fire" kills 2 but saves 20 are we not ahead?
"If such precautions preclude 50 percent of the homicidal maniacs, that is better than allowing them all to get through."
Where do you get that 50%? Made out of thin air? Because I don't believe you will stop 1% of homicidal maniacs that are there to die. It is a pipe dream that won't happen. Would we not be better off, in the long run, to eliminate the insanity from our society that makes a homicidal maniac rather than trying to stop one that we never see coming? Plus, of course, making it difficult for that maniac to get his weapon of choice accomplishes nothing at all when it comes to saving lives - certainly banning guns painted black isn't going to produce that 50% savings."You have a motion detector. Do you have one in every room, including bathrooms? Do you have cameras in every room? That's what we're talking about, not a detector/camera or two at the front door. And yes, it is turning a grade school into a prison. If that's what is necessary, then do it and hang the cost (billions)."
For heavens sake, Wilderness, the outside world is not Mayberry. My house is not a public place, surely you can see the difference. I am just making a point that armed guards should be at the entrances at the start school day, the security features I am speaking about should apply primarily when school is out of session to prevent trespass, vandalism or theft. Do you really have a problem with that? Security is expensive, but if you want protection for the kids and property......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But killing kids in school is civilized? Wanting a "civilized" answer that is pleasant is not going to help.
On what do you base that "probably"? A completely unsupported opinion? And if it does - if "friendly fire" kills 2 but saves 20 are we not ahead?
--------------------------------------------------------
This is funny, now you acknowledge the deterrent value of a "Miss Brooks" doubling as 'pistol packing mama' in a classroom, but say that sophisticated security systems and precautions are useless and without deterrent value. I find that sort of odd. I find that your opinion regarding the deterrent value of security systems as incorrect and unsupported, are we even?
---------------------------------
"Where do you get that 50%? Made out of thin air? Because I don't believe you will stop 1% of homicidal maniacs that are there to die. It is a pipe dream that won't happen. Would we not be better off, in the long run, to eliminate the insanity from our society that makes a homicidal maniac rather than trying to stop one that we never see coming? Plus, of course, making it difficult for that maniac to get his weapon of choice accomplishes nothing at all when it comes to saving lives - certainly banning guns painted black isn't going to produce that 50% savings."
-------------------------------------------------
Where do you get the 1 percent or "zero"? Can you substantiate the total uselessness of the deterrent features put into place? What you believe does not necessarily make it fact, now does it? The experts and the people in a position to REALLY KNOW say otherwise, so to whom should I give credibility? Insanity is part of human condition, you can never really totally eradicate it from any society. What kind of magical proposal are you offering that can remake 'man' himself? Are the conservatives really that clever?"Security is expensive, but if you want protection for the kids and property......"
Already addressed: "If that's what is necessary, then do it and hang the cost (billions)."
"I find that your opinion regarding the deterrent value of security systems as incorrect and unsupported, are we even?"
Yes we are. I don't think you will deter a psychotic with a burning desire to kill with anything less than incarceration; you think making a specific tool harder to get, or an increase in the probability of getting caught, as they desire to be, will do the job. We're even.
"What you believe does not necessarily make it fact, now does it?"
Nope. Does yours?
"The experts and the people in a position to REALLY KNOW say otherwise"
Link, please, showing professional psychologists that agree that simple deterrents, easy to bypass, will actually deter a madman from what they really, really want to do? We're not talking about the gang kid in the street or the father going after his daughter's rapist; we're talking about the psycho determined to kill little kids. Or at least I am.
No magical proposal, but...do you disagree that there is something in the American culture, as opposed to those of other first world countries, that turns our populace towards violence? Without knowing what it is, do you disagree that it might be changeable? Do you think it is the wisest use of our resources to completely ignore that and put it into removing rights from people in the hope that it will work []this[/i] time even though it hasn't yet?"Yes we are. I don't think you will deter a psychotic with a burning desire to kill with anything less than incarceration; you think making a specific tool harder to get, or an increase in the probability of getting caught, as they desire to be, will do the job. We're even."
--------------------------------
Do you think that this determined psychotic can break into Fort Knox? That would be a job for professionals not a psychotic nut job. Yes, making specific tools geared specifically as anti-personnel weapons illegal and/or very difficult to come by, has got to slow such a person down. It is not even a matter of just getting caught, but can you do it?
"The experts and the people in a position to REALLY KNOW say otherwise"
I have proven my point, every airport, for example, has elaborate security systems. If they all were truly useless, why are they there? I think that it would more appropriate that you provide your link that proves that the psychotic can breach any kind of deterrent to achieve a goal.
--------------------------
No magical proposal, but...do you disagree that there is something in the American culture, as opposed to those of other first world countries, that turns our populace towards violence? Without knowing what it is, do you disagree that it might be changeable? Do you think it is the wisest use of our resources to completely ignore that and put it into removing rights from people in the hope that it will work []this[/i] time even though it hasn't yet?
--------------------------------------
That is the most profound statement made in our discourse so far. I have to research to see if our tendencies toward violence in our society relative to other western democracies has a specific cause and then determine if the cause can be corrected and the circumstances changed. I will agree with you that some of our effort needs to placed in the direction that you suggest."specific tools geared specifically as anti-personnel weapons illegal and/or very difficult to come by, has got to slow such a person down."
Agreed. And those would be military assault guns, not the semi-automatic rifle commonly used in hunting, right? You DO know that the dreaded, black, fake "assault weapon" under attack by gun haters is nothing like that "anti-personal weapon"?
"Do you think that this determined psychotic can break into Fort Knox? "
That's what I said, isn't it? That yes, we can turn our schools into locked down prisons, complete with barbed wire fencing and multiple guards at every entrance, hardened concrete walls, etc. and it will keep the psycho out. But a metal detector in the hallway, with or without an armed guard nearby, won't. Of course Ft. Knox has just a little more in security than that metal detector and single guard, doesn't it? Really, Cred - your gross exaggerations don't help either the discussion or your case.
"I have to research to see if our tendencies toward violence in our society relative to other western democracies has a specific cause and then determine if the cause can be corrected and the circumstances changed."
It's the same basic concept I've been saying for years. You just don't want to read anything that doesn't include disarming the people so gloss right over it every time. Guns are not the problem and even insanity is only the symptom of the problem. It's in our culture, in our society, that somehow we are promoting violence. We glorify it, we watch it on TV and play with it in our games. We see it in the sports arenas and pay to do so. We laugh when a soccer game turns to violence from the stands and gasp with delight when a NASCAR car hits the wall. We are absolutely infatuated with violence! Couple that with young people never being forced to learn self control and emotional control because we take of their social problems for them (or cause it with parents that are never home) and it seems (seems!) evident that we are creating the problem ourselves.
But good luck researching that. I'm not psychologist to do it, doubt that you are, and no one else cares enough to either do it or hire it done.
A most interesting and revealing article, I am anxious to hear your rebuttal in its regard.......
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/a … uns-europeDid you study the article and it's data? Gun homicides increase with increasing numbers of guns - a no brainer if there ever was one.
But the "research" somehow, for some reason, stopped there. There is a very pretty graph showing fairly conclusively that there are more gun deaths when there are more guns. What it does not show is that there are more violent deaths with more guns. Perhaps it's because that cannot be shown to be true and thus gives a lie to the idea that taking guns will save lives - a novel idea that few gun haters will listen to, let alone discuss.
This is nothing new, and I'm not the only one to research the question and find that crazy and unexpected answer. I'm just one of the few that will discuss it, that will accept it even though I don't truly understand it for statistics never indicate the "why", only the "what". Are you willing, or are you so tied to taking guns that any such fact is to be set aside and ignored as if it never happened?If I exaggerate, you jump to conclusions, nobody is talking about taking your precious guns.
But, we need to get real about the real source of violence in American society and stop equivocating, don't you agree?
What are you befuddling things for?
I got educated based on the article which said that American crime is really not that much greater than that of other developed countries, the difference is in the outcome of homicide associated with crime. So, the tool used is the difference between a bloody nose verses a body bag. There is otherwise no profound cultural difference between an American lawbreaker and one from another developed nation. An encounter with a robber in the U.S. is likely going to lead to a homicide more than a similar situation in Canada, for example. Human nature is no different in Canada then it is here, but the policy about proliferation of firearms is different.
So, criminal activity that occurs with similar frequency in other societies similar to ours, here leads to more deaths, that is not because they are using blow guns, bowie knives, fisticuffs in determination to kill the victim, etc. What do you think that the reason is? Honestly, cutting the BS? Did you bother to read the article with an impartial attitude?
------------------------
But the "research" somehow, for some reason, stopped there. There is a very pretty graph showing fairly conclusively that there are more gun deaths when there are more guns. What it does not show is that there are more violent deaths with more guns. Perhaps it's because that cannot be shown to be true and thus gives a lie to the idea that taking guns will save lives - a novel idea that few gun haters will listen to, let alone discuss.
-------------------------
More guns equate to more homicides as the outcome of crimes that in other societies do not find no where near as many victims in body bags.
I am aware of the politics and tradition surrounding the 2nd Amendment, so I don't advocate taking guns. But outside of the constant smoke screen that emanates from the right, there is a truth that they consistently hide from.
I am more than willing to discuss or debate this with you, I have nothing to hide. Again, the 'why' is clear
human nature is consistent across international borders and a thief is a thief, regardless. But, a thief with easy access to firearms are more likely to cause a homicide than otherwise. Thus, the wide disparity in the American outcome verses that of any other developed society."So, the tool used is the difference between a bloody nose verses a body bag"
This we know because more guns in a society does not indicate there will be more bodies. Right? That's what you're saying, after all, because we already know that to be true regardless of what conclusion you or anyone else might draw from seeing that gun violence goes up with the number of guns. We see that over and over and over through the first nations of the world; the gun ownership rate does not predict the homicide rate even to the point that more of one means more of the other. It doesn't even come close.
"What do you think that the reason is? Honestly, cutting the BS? Did you bother to read the article with an impartial attitude?"
That's what I'm trying to get you to consider - what the reason is. How about you? Are you impartial? Have you asked yourself why more guns does not mean more homicides if guns cause homicides? Have you studied a data set of gun ownership vs overall homicide rates? Have you actually asked that, or have you just assumed it is true because more guns = more GUN homicides? Do you question your assumptions, do you try to prove them true or just leave them alone because an article like this one draws the same conclusion...without ever supporting it any more than you do? Cred, you can rationalize most anything you want to - people are really good at that - but until you actually sit back and look for hard data that's all it can be - a rationalization that you accept because it's easy, or because it fits what you want to believe. The very thought that if guns aren't available killers will find a different weapon is not something you appear to wish to consider but seems to be integral to the question.
"More guns equate to more homicides as the outcome of crimes that in other societies do not find no where near as many victims in body bags. "
Except that that is not true. Here: for any country you choose to name (keep it to something close to "first world", please) with a low gun ownership rate and a low homicide rate I will provide two more with either more guns and fewer homicides OR fewer guns and more homicides. Proof positive that more guns = fewer murders, right?
Except that that doesn't work either, because you can prove the opposite from the exact same set of data points. That's what happens when there is no correlation, when the data shifts all over the place without ever remaining constant. If you pick and choose carefully enough, and use only some of the data, you can "prove" anything you want to.
Credence, you are making a classical error in both logic and statistics; choosing two data points and assuming that because those two things (no. of guns and no. of homicides) are both high that one is causal to the other. When there is a large set of data points, all saying the same thing nearly without fail, you can come closer to making that claim but even then a causal relationship requires more than mere correlation. The way it is now, without any correlation at all, there is simply no possibility that either one is causal to the other. Not that we don't know which one, but that neither one can be causal, for if there were a causal relationship there would have to be a correlation as well.
"But, a thief with easy access to firearms are more likely to cause a homicide than otherwise. Thus, the wide disparity in the American outcome verses that of any other developed society."
If that were true I could not confidently extend the challenge listed above. But I can; I've made it many times and not a single person has failed to "lose" the challenge. You are forming a causal relationship that not only does not exist but where no relationship at all exists!Trying to sort through your points. You are basically saying that if the guns in this culture were removed the criminals would just find another means to kill their victim? That seems to be your main theme. So, the horrendous homicide rate here would be the same but the criminal would use hemlock instead of a gun? So that is why you say, that guns have nothing to do with the outrageously high rate of gun violence? Is that the gist of it?
That is not really close to what the evidence in the article reveals. It shows that there is no American predilection gene toward homicide or even violence, but because there are more guns that are easily available commonly used to commit crimes or otherwise disturb the peace, the encounter with any criminals is likely to involve a gun and guns are more reliably lethal, are they not? There is almost 1 gun for every American, the criminal element use them routinely to take candy from a baby. If something goes wrong, somebody is dead. I did not say that law abiding gun owners bear any responsibility. And, while statistically there is no more crime here than in any of our counterparts, the exclusive use of the gun by the criminal element would make what would be, at most, an annoying encounter in a more evolved society, a lethal event in America.
I am trying to see your point and avoid false equivalency in these discussions.
Some "food for thought" for you. Consider the environment that produced the Florida killer. Here are some comments on our schools; is it possible that the school itself is instrumental in why that kid turned to dealing death instead of learning to live? I don't know, but most of what is said there makes sense to me - almost the only thing I disagree with is the insinuation that the writer's religion - Christianity - should be a part of schools.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/13- … R.facebookI read your link, thank you.
I went to a high school with almost 2000 students almost 50 years ago. The idea of cliques and social pecking order is not a new concept. You had exceptional students academically, the social climbers and the ones that are not very popular. Why is that an excuse? Sounds like rightwing intellectualism is taking on the squishy mushy middle that Conservatives accuse liberals of….
I was a part of public education, why all the bogey men? Is this just another excuse? Under Point 1, what is the lady saying? Peer pressure has been around since the pharaohs, so what is the ‘big deal’?
Why do they feel like prisons? We all had to sit in our seats, be attentive regarding the lessons taught, etc. I sat in compulsory settings for 13 years and I don’t see the school and its structure as the problem. How can the school be held responsible for every troubled or morose student? I blame the parents and hold them more responsible for what happens and what does not happen regarding their children in school. (Point 2)
Again, for point 3, this stratification and social label stuff has been going on since high school and teen agers have been invented. So, what is the ‘big deal’?
It is just like the addled conservative mindset to pit teachers and student administrators against students to conceal their homicidal fantasy with the firearm. Now, this, under point 5, is a gross exaggeration.
What is leftist indoctrination? It is more like rightwing excuses. Conservatives annoy me to no end always implying that people cannot reason and think for themselves but are being ‘politicized’ a la George Soros? Just because they are teenagers, do we assume that they are not capable of coming to logical conclusions based on facts and events clearly before them? (Point 6)
Is there anything wrong with students being politically active? Certainly beats the apathetic attitude, doesn't it? Only the rightwinger is frightened of this. If there is a need to focus on more of the basics as part of the education, I am all for it, however. As for the ‘cynical and nihilistic’ as discussed in point 7, I consider that debatable.
As for point 8, public schools disregard students’ family and non-school lives, poppycock.
Of course, school takes up a great deal of time, it always has unless you harken to the days of the one room school house. Conservatives always talk about indoctrination, instead of acknowledging the importance of education for our young people. This Borg comparison is an exaggeration and as such is just more rightwing ‘mumbo jumbo’.
In regarding punishment being repressive in pub lic schools, of this I am not an advocate. The term Police State is BS and is rightwing propaganda. (Point 9)
No one says that you cannot pray for yourself quietly or otherwise on your own time. But I will not abide with religious establishment in public schools. This so called complaint is just more BS. (point 10)
Is this more rightwing bigotry; dehumanization and oppression of the ‘poor white male’? I mean, really? (Point 11)
Schools have to be places of discipline and order to function. The entire American society is based upon socialization, what is so terrifying about the concept? (point 12)
I say after reading this, that this has a strong rightwing bias and that what happened in Florida is due to the proliferation of firearms and failed and inadequate parenting. Instead of blaming the institution of public education, the blame for problem students are the responsibility of the parents.Oh well, I found it thought provoking. Yes, we had all those things, but it seems not to the same degree. And the political activism; should a student decide to be politically active they never found administration bucking them - quite the opposite regardless of that teacher/principal/librarian/whatever and I do not find that to be the case today. The vast majority of schools, whether high school or college, are very liberal and woe be to any student that takes the opposite stance. Even elementary school kids can be taken to task and berated for parroting their parent's conservative views. The biggest holdout to that liberalism is the far right pushing agenda of religious control in our schools, and then woe to the poor student that is of a different persuasion than Christianity.
I don't suppose we'll ever see eye to eye on that, though - we both see bogeymen when there are none, not really, and gloss it over when our beliefs are being pushed.It is a different perspective, a most conservative one to be sure. Young people tend to be liberal anyway, to inquire and question the monolithic structure of the establishment and its so called values is a liberal/progressive quality. I was walking around in JROTC uniforms while Vietnam was raging and there was not a 'hard hat' to be found on the inauguration of "Earth Day". Anti-war political activism was going on in my time among high school students, so there is nothing new here.
Yes, the young are generally more liberal. Although I would put it down to having a nanny (parents, school, college, whatever) their entire lives, resulting in never being responsible for themselves or their own needs.
It's been my observation that as those young mature and experience the need to care for themselves much of that liberalism tends to fade. Having to work for what they have seems to make a difference, somehow. A different perspective for sure.
Related Discussions
- 260
Another school shooting
by IzzyM 11 years ago
Dear God, what is the matter with America?Another school shooting. High death toll. Few days before Christmas. Connecticut.http://abcnews.go.com/US/27-people-dead … Mtxy2_tRGY
- 213
We Can Keep Children Safe In School There Are Solutions
by Sharlee 12 months ago
This one thing will fix it all ! Really, will new gun control really fix it all? And when can we expect this fix? When hell freezes over?Do human beings all of a sudden pick up a gun and go shoot people?How does a person come to this point? Do we need to fix people, not...
- 67
How to stop or at least seriously curtail gun violence in schools
by Leland Johnson 6 years ago
The federal government could declare a state of emergency and post at least 2 well trained, armed personnel, either police or military, within our public schools. Gunmen attack soft targets. They like to assault "gun free zones." I believe 20 years of wrangling over...
- 825
Gun Control - California Style
by Scott Belford 5 days ago
States who care about their citizens finally have a roadmap on how to hold the people who will sell a gun to just anybody to account. This is thanks to Texas and their oppressive, demeaning anti-choice law.California is passing a law, which Gov Newsom will sign, that allows "Californians...
- 254
Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? Or does it depend?
by Jeff Berndt 11 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
- 88
Would you consider a total ban on possessing a gun in America?
by safiq ali patel 8 years ago
If the United States Federal Government outlawed the possession of Guns what would your response be?