The Main Cause of School Shootings

[Der Teutoniker]

all you're doing is feed the negative spiral. Defending yourself from aggressors with a gun makes you an aggressor yourself that other people will want to protect themselves from.

Really? I want to own a gun to protect myself, and my family from things like burglars, or tyrants. I don't want a gun to protect myself from my CCW permit-carrying coworker that keeps a gun in his car, and owns several at home, and frequently shoots them.

Americans want to protect themselves... not to shoot everyone else who has a gun. But... I guess maybe in bizarro world such logic would apply.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Since some suggest that Americans are more depressive & violent as other people, why not stay in USA...

Let's make a top 5 of the states with the highest gun death rates, and let's make a top 5 with the lowest gun death rates.
Then let's check the household gun ownership of those states.

State......................Household Gun Ownership..............Gun Death Rate per 100,000

1 Louisiana................45.6 %......................................19.58
2 Alabama.................57.2 %......................................16.99
3 Alaska...................60.6 %......................................16.38
4 Mississippi..............54.3 %......................................16.38
5 Nevada..................31.5%.......................................16.25

46 New York..............18.1%........................................5.20
47 Connecticut...........16.2%........................................4.95
48 Rhode Island..........13.3%........................................4.43
49 Massachusetts........12.8%........................................3.28
50 Hawaii.................9.7%.........................................2.58

I see a portion of number, but not the complete set. And, I see that there isn't anything other than the numbers present. What are the laws in each state for owning guns? What constitutes gun violence in each state? Is this just shootings that cause death, or death and injuries? I'm not quite sure what I am looking at.

You can find the report here:
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

[The Magic Spirit]

How about a little restriction. Seeing how that has worked out everywhere else.

Good, I will wait patiently while you compile reports from every country for the last twenty years. I want to see definitive documentation that every single nation in the entire world with more restrictive gun laws than the US necessarily have a drastically reduced death-by-gun rate than the US. In addition to thatm you will need to provide documentation showing that countries with similar restrictions as the US do not have lower death-by-gun rates, as well as documention from all of the countries in the world with less restrictive gun laws than the US, showing that they all have severely increased death-by-gun rates.

Doing this for every single country in the world is impossible. You're trying to set an impossible task in order to further your own point. Hairless Kitten already produced a list of 6 countries with significantly less gun deaths and with a little effort me and the person quoting them could probably get those stats for the Netherlands, but if you think our stance is wrong, then why don't you make some effort yourself and show us just one country with strict laws that doesn't have less gun deaths per 100,000 than the US.

[Der Teutoniker]

Having laws that demand proper storage would create requirements for owners to meet, which would restrict them to responsible owners.

Not necessarily. As it is there are restrictions that are supposed to only let responsible people own them, doesn't always work, neither does any other restriction have a 100% success rate.

And what post did I agree with you, contrary to my own post? Please quote both of my posts and highlight the sections that are contrary, and I will deal with it, after all I've made more than two posts in this thread.

[Hairless Kitten II]

all you're doing is feed the negative spiral. Defending yourself from aggressors with a gun makes you an aggressor yourself that other people will want to protect themselves from.

Really? I want to own a gun to protect myself, and my family from things like burglars, or tyrants. I don't want a gun to protect myself from my CCW permit-carrying coworker that keeps a gun in his car, and owns several at home, and frequently shoots them.

Americans want to protect themselves... not to shoot everyone else who has a gun. But... I guess maybe in bizarro world such logic would apply.

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/co ... 8.143099v1

[Der Teutoniker]

Doing this for every single country in the world is impossible. You're trying to set an impossible task in order to further your own point. Hairless Kitten already produced a list of 6 countries with significantly less gun deaths and with a little effort me and the person quoting them could probably get those stats for the Netherlands, but if you think our stance is wrong, then why don't you make some effort yourself and show us just one country with strict laws that doesn't have less gun deaths per 100,000 than the US.

Of course it's impossible, as is proving that gun control always reduces rates of the crime. I wanted the poster to prove absolutely the statement that he put forth, but thanks for trying.

No thanks, I attribute the death-by-gun rate in America more to it's culture than it's ownership of guns, so showing mere restrictions would be an incomplete measure to provide evidence of any claim that I would actually make.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Why do looooove Americans their gun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqh6Ap9ldTs

[Robarya]

Every single death that occurs is one too many. The fact you have one, means there's a chance you or someone else uses it. Why do you consider your right to have a deathly weapon more important than the lives of human beings?

I don't have a gun, and don't think that I need one either for that matter, since I'm confident in my ability to defend myself without one. I live in Sweden and the gun laws are quite strict here too. Besides, I would not even want to use a legal gun that could be traced to me even in self-defense, since I don't trust the legal system (hell, one guy got convicted for beating up a man who tried to rape or kill a woman). Hell, if I ever kill someone in self-defense I will dismember his body and dig it down in the forest, simply because I'm sure the legal system would come bitching that I should have done nothing after throwing the first punch at him; surely he would not have posed a threat at all towards me, although he tried to stab me to death seconds earlier.

Anyways, the right to bear arms is directly linked to the right to self-defense. If you are threatened to your life you might need a gun to neutralize the threat adequately. Especially women might need guns because they are physically weak and can't fend off a male invader in melee.

[Der Teutoniker]

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/co ... 8.143099v1

Ok, cool. How does this finding conflict with what I said? I never claimed that 700 people in one American city were less likely to be shot because they carried guns... but I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to provide more than anecdotal evidence?

[Der Teutoniker]

Why do looooove Americans their gun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqh6Ap9ldTs

Youtube video of a propoganda film is easily the best evidence to be found anywhere.

[Secristan]

Could the gun control/accessibility debate be moved to another thread and us get back to the actual topic here?

[Hairless Kitten II]

[Kinstantia]

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/co ... 8.143099v1

What does that have to do with school shootings? I know you're going to tell me something to the effect that I am discrediting it because its counterproductive to my argument, but the underlying topic remains school shooting where, I would assume, most children aren't packing heat with them on the off chance that an attack could happen to them.

Secondly, the last line "Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures." Is that possible in, say, a middle or high school? Even on a college campus?

[Helgrin]

Having laws that demand proper storage would create requirements for owners to meet, which would restrict them to responsible owners.

Not necessarily. As it is there are restrictions that are supposed to only let responsible people own them, doesn't always work, neither does any other restriction have a 100% success rate.

And what post did I agree with you, contrary to my own post? Please quote both of my posts and highlight the sections that are contrary, and I will deal with it, after all I've made more than two posts in this thread.

How about you do something for me? How about you highlight where I said, or even implied where I said that it would have a 100% success rate? Or give one piece of evidence that suggests that gun restriction laws don't help?

[Kinstantia]

Thanks for the debate. It's way late and time for bed.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Why do looooove Americans their gun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqh6Ap9ldTs

Youtube video of a propoganda film is easily the best evidence to be found anywhere.

Propaganda film? Not even close.

If the information in his film was false then institutions as NRA would sue him till he's death.

They didn't.

[The Magic Spirit]

all you're doing is feed the negative spiral. Defending yourself from aggressors with a gun makes you an aggressor yourself that other people will want to protect themselves from.

Really? I want to own a gun to protect myself, and my family from things like burglars, or tyrants. I don't want a gun to protect myself from my CCW permit-carrying coworker that keeps a gun in his car, and owns several at home, and frequently shoots them.

Americans want to protect themselves... not to shoot everyone else who has a gun. But... I guess maybe in bizarro world such logic would apply.

So suppose you're burgled. Why shoot the burglar? You can just as easily call 911. If he happens to be armed, you can hit him over the head with a shovel or simply hide in your attic. I'm not saying you want to shoot everyone else who has a gun; I'm saying that if you shoot the burglar, other people will want to protect themselves from burglars too, you run the risk of going to jail for shooting someone (especially if they're not armed) and burglars will arm themselves to protect themselves from homeowners. In the Netherlands that doesn't happen because burglars don't fear getting shot by the homeowner. The whole fear and protect thing is only bringing more guns into circulation and causing more risk.

By the way, if you own a gun you're 4.5x more likely to be shot in an assault by someone else protecting themselves from your gun (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121512.htm) and let's not forget the accidental deaths. You can't get hurt in a gun accident at home if there are no guns there. I'll keep looking for the stats on accidental gun deaths, but again the amount of people who die as a result of accidents with otherwise unused guns is depressing to see too. Do you really believe it protects you and your family to have a deathly weapon around the place? What if an otherwise unarmed burglar finds the weapon?

If you burglarproof your house (lock windows and doors, install some outdoor lighting and perhaps install an alarm system) the chance the burglar will pick your place will be immensely reduced. No one dies and you still have your stuff.

[Der Teutoniker]

You can find the report here:
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

Your report is missing as much information as your post did... I'm definately seeing a correlation between using an incomplete source, and incomplete statistics.

[Der Teutoniker]

Propaganda film? Not even close.

If the information in his film was false then institutions as NRA would sue him till he's death.

They didn't.

You must not be aware of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. One can film lies without being sued, should they desire.

And yes, it is propoganda... to suggest otherwise is probably the most laughable thing I've ever heard.

If you are unaware of the 1st Amendment that I referred to above, I can post a link to show you what it's about.

[Der Teutoniker]

all you're doing is feed the negative spiral. Defending yourself from aggressors with a gun makes you an aggressor yourself that other people will want to protect themselves from.

Really? I want to own a gun to protect myself, and my family from things like burglars, or tyrants. I don't want a gun to protect myself from my CCW permit-carrying coworker that keeps a gun in his car, and owns several at home, and frequently shoots them.

Americans want to protect themselves... not to shoot everyone else who has a gun. But... I guess maybe in bizarro world such logic would apply.

So suppose you're burgled. Why shoot the burglar? You can just as easily call 911. If he happens to be armed, you can hit him over the head with a shovel or simply hide in your attic.

I don't own a shovel, or an attic... and shooting a burglar is much easier than picking up my phone, calling the local constables office, and explaining to them my situation, while waiting for them to respond (they aren't right next door to me). Besides, as it is I have a good throwing axe next to the bed... just in case. I would likely try not to use deadly force, but it seems quite likely that a potential burglar would flee, rather than being shot/hacked. I would try every avenue short of actually shooting someone... but if I'm holding a gun, and the idiot comes at me... I'm doing evolution a favor by eliminating him. Besides, the wife would likely be under the bed calling 911.

[Robarya]

So suppose you're burgled. Why shoot the burglar? You can just as easily call 911. If he happens to be armed, you can hit him over the head with a shovel or simply hide in your attic. I'm not saying you want to shoot everyone else who has a gun; I'm saying that if you shoot the burglar, other people will want to protect themselves from burglars too, you run the risk of going to jail for shooting someone (especially if they're not armed) and burglars will arm themselves to protect themselves from homeowners. In the Netherlands that doesn't happen because burglars don't fear getting shot by the homeowner. The whole fear and protect thing is only bringing more guns into circulation and causing more risk.

By the way, if you own a gun you're 4.5x more likely to be shot in an assault by someone else protecting themselves from your gun (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121512.htm) and let's not forget the accidental deaths. You can't get hurt in a gun accident at home if there are no guns there. I'll keep looking for the stats on accidental gun deaths, but again the amount of people who die as a result of accidents with otherwise unused guns is depressing to see too. Do you really believe it protects you and your family to have a deathly weapon around the place? What if an otherwise unarmed burglar finds the weapon?

If you burglarproof your house (lock windows and doors, install some outdoor lighting and perhaps install an alarm system) the chance the burglar will pick your place will be immensely reduced. No one dies and you still have your stuff.

I would personally be willing to kill someone for stealing an Euro from me, but besides that: Why should one put oneself at the mercy of a burglar, when you are not even aware of his intentions? I would personally not give a shit about statistics. I would do what I could do neutralize the threat rather than hiding in a closet sobbing like a little sissy faggot.

[Helgrin]

Why do looooove Americans their gun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqh6Ap9ldTs

Exelent!

[Hairless Kitten II]

Propaganda film? Not even close.

If the information in his film was false then institutions as NRA would sue him till he's death.

They didn't.

You must not be aware of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. One can film lies without being sued, should they desire.

And yes, it is propoganda... to suggest otherwise is probably the most laughable thing I've ever heard.

If you are unaware of the 1st Amendment that I referred to above, I can post a link to show you what it's about.

Sure, but if you publish false information, one can sue you. Also in America.

[Hairless Kitten II]

You can find the report here:
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

Your report is missing as much information as your post did... I'm definately seeing a correlation between using an incomplete source, and incomplete statistics.

The report doesn't fit your mind. That's the problem.

Do you have a report that's suggesting something else?

[Quintessence of Dust]

Have there been many school shootings by women? I know of "I Don't Like Mondays" girl, but that's it. Maybe not a "cause", but a big correlation seems to be that almost all school shooters, from the US or not, are men.