Mass shootings and the Media

[Dakini]

Other countries have recreational use of firearms too, without the massive gun homicide rate. You just have to prove that you're going to use your gun for sport or hunting instead of for shooting people.

Shooting in self defense is also legitimate use of firearms.

Prove that there are more self-defense killings than homicides.


Without using stupidly biased statistics from the NRA or other such advocates.

[Saiwania]

Oh, and one stabbing hardly amounts to Canada having mass stabbings instead of mass shootings.

What do you suppose the head of that household should have done in order to counter someone rushing in with a knife? I'd prefer to use a shotgun to blow him away in that scenario but I suppose a crossbow would've been lethal enough if the arrow didn't miss.

[Galiantus II]

If we cannot, in fact, prevent killings and massacres then it is not because such things are somehow inherent to humanity, but because of people like you insisting that we shouldn't even try.

I advocate allowing people to carry weapons because we need to have a way to prevent mass-murder and murder in general. Also, we need to look really really scary to invade with land forces, so we are not invaded. Guns are a tool for self-defense.

[The Celtic British Isles]

Three people being murdered by their daughter and her boyfriend is hardly a mass stabbing.

Oh, and one stabbing hardly amounts to Canada having mass stabbings instead of mass shootings.

---

This is something I can agree with. We should assume everyone deserves access to the means to defend themselves, unless a psychiatrist with good judgement and skill determines otherwise.

I think Yummers may have found a supporter for his campaign to provide free firearms to homeless people.

---

there is no way to stop it,mankind will always find a way to kill and massacre each other. taking away gun won't solve it, giving more guns won't solve it. people who believe such dribble simply either have too much hope,or have been spoon fed the same info for their whole lives. all we can do is grief and clean up the bodies. To think that we can take the evil off earth is simply delusional. whenever something bad happens i always remember one line from a movie:
"Nothing exists except empty space,and you,and you are but a thought"

If we cannot, in fact, prevent killings and massacres then it is not because such things are somehow inherent to humanity, but because of people like you insisting that we shouldn't even try.

i really don't feel like getting into an argument with humans,as they tend to go on forever, but i will leave you with this. if you truly think that mankind can be peaceful,why do you allow people in blue suits to carry around military grade weapons.to protect you? from who,the peaceful humans?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What if somebody who bought their gun for hunting decides to use it to shoot people?

Then they use their gun to shoot people. What if someone who bought a gun "just 'cause" shoots people?

Then it's no different than the person who bought their gun for hunting but then kills somebody with is, nor do either of them negate the positive benefits of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

[Dakini]

And how do I prove that? It seams to me that 99.9% of guns in the United States are used for recreational shooting and are never used against an individual.

300 million guns in 100 million hands, 30,000 homicides, suicides and accidents. The positive uses of firearms (self defense, recreation) FAR outweigh the negative.

Source?

Apart from, once again, the NRA or other such biased groups.

[Big Jim P]

Shooting in self defense is also legitimate use of firearms.

Prove that there are more self-defense killings than homicides.


Without using stupidly biased statistics from the NRA or other such advocates.

Prove that the negative aspects of gun ownership outweigh the positive.

[Dakini]

Oh, and one stabbing hardly amounts to Canada having mass stabbings instead of mass shootings.

What do you suppose the head of that household should have done in order to counter someone rushing in with a knife? I'd prefer to use a shotgun to blow him away in that scenario but I suppose a crossbow would've been lethal enough if the arrow didn't miss.

So... you think that the head of the household should walk around his own house armed at all times in case his daughter and her boyfriend decide to get stabby?

[Spirit of Hope]

And how do I prove that?

By joining an appropriate club or acquiring a hunting license?

It seams to me that 99.9% of guns in the United States are used for recreational shooting and are never used against an individual.

Source.

Also, seems*, seams are on your jeans.

I have done all of those.

300 million guns in the United States. ~100,000 deaths and injuries due to guns in any year. So about .03% of guns injure or kill a person in a year. Including suicides, murders, and accidents. Source.

Harris and Klebold both got there guns quite illegally, they had someone else buy the guns for them (a straw purchase which is illegal) and one of there guns was purchased from a gun store that did not keep records of the purchase (another crime).

Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) killed his mom before taking the gun. While his taking the gun isn't a crime the murder he carried out to acquire it was.

James Holmes probably should have been pared from purchasing his firearms due to mental illness, he had made homicidal statements to his psychiatrists, but the steps to block his access to firearms was not taken.

You could argue, and I will, that the murder of Lanza's mother was the first killing in his spree. The guns he used were all acquired legally. I'll give you Harris and Klebold but the purchasers broke no laws in acquiring the guns, only in turning them over to people shouldn't have had them. As for James Holmes, he presented as being quite rational when he bought his guns.

Saying the guy who sold the guns to Harris and Klebold committed no crime until he sold it to them is like saying they committed no crime with the guns until they started shooting people. He certainly got the guns with the intention of selling the guns to Harris and Klebold, which is illegal. Plus I support restricting private sales.

James Holmes made multiple homicidal statements to his psychiatrists, who reported that. That can lead to someone being placed on the no purchase list.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What do you suppose the head of that household should have done in order to counter someone rushing in with a knife? I'd prefer to use a shotgun to blow him away in that scenario but I suppose a crossbow would've been lethal enough if the arrow didn't miss.

So... you think that the head of the household should walk around his own house armed at all times in case his daughter and her boyfriend decide to get stabby?

You should always be armed when your daughter is near her boyfriend.

Granted, putting a shock collar on him is less lethal, but he could sabotage it when you're not looking.

[Galiantus II]

What do you suppose the head of that household should have done in order to counter someone rushing in with a knife? I'd prefer to use a shotgun to blow him away in that scenario but I suppose a crossbow would've been lethal enough if the arrow didn't miss.

So... you think that the head of the household should walk around his own house armed at all times in case his daughter and her boyfriend decide to get stabby?

Might not be a bad idea.

[Kelinfort]

Prove that there are more self-defense killings than homicides.


Without using stupidly biased statistics from the NRA or other such advocates.

Prove that the negative aspects of gun ownership outweigh the positive.

Self defence a strong deterrent

[Laanvia]

Most of these kids (the shooters) are complete nutters who receive several mean comments over the span of about a week and then decide to bring their fathers 12 gauge into school...

This is probably how I think it pans out:
1. Perpetrator is mildly bullied
2. Perpetrator become very frustrated over, what is probably, a bit of bante
3. Perpetrator steals daddies 12 gauge and smuggles it into school
4. Perpetrator takes out some of the "bullies"
5. Perpetrators take out a couple of unrelated pupils for good measure
6. Perpetrator puts a bullet in his own head
7. Media turns up at the scene to interview traumatised/upset survivors or victims families
8. The whole thing blows over within about two weeks

[Saiwania]

So... you think that the head of the household should walk around his own house armed at all times in case his daughter and her boyfriend decide to get stabby?

This was in the middle of the night and the wife heard him breaking and entering, instead of reaching for a weapon (which they probably didn't have) she went into the garage unarmed and got killed very quickly from blood loss while being stabbed in vital arteries. The daughter did not participate until after both were killed by her man, then she supposedly killed her young brother by slashing his throat with the same knife to spare his becoming an orphan. I'm pretty sure I'd recognize that something might be up if I hear my doors being broken into. Being armed however probably wouldn't help against a master of stealth.

[BK117B2]

Reducing media coverage of shooters is extremely easy: people just stop watching such coverage. Stations don't care what you want to watch, as long as they can get you to watch it on THEIR station. It's about ratings.

That being said, it won't change....people DO want tons of coverage of the shooter.

So it's not actually easy.

That doesn't make sense. Being easy doesn't magically mean someone is going to do it. There are many easy things that we choose to never do at all.

[Ifreann]

Of fucking course you can. It is impossible to shoot anyone if you have been kept from possessing a gun.

You can still stab people, run into crowds with semi-trucks, crash airplanes into buildings, etc. with the exact same outcome.

No, you can't. The outcome will be quite different.

Again, you're acting like the people who do these things are equivalent to earthquakes or other natural disasters that can never be stopped, only reacted to. And that's stupid.

No one said it was. It is you, in fact, who are acting like this is an all or nothing matter.

It is not an all or nothing matter, but the consequences of one criminal getting a gun in a gun free society are much more likely to produce extreme outcomes.

Ah yes, the action hero hypothesis.

Which is worse?
A. One criminal gets a hold of a gun and starts shooting unarmed civilians.
B. Ten criminals get guns in ten separate situations, and 50% of the citizens are armed.

The latter is worse.

---

Oh, and one stabbing hardly amounts to Canada having mass stabbings instead of mass shootings.

What do you suppose the head of that household should have done in order to counter someone rushing in with a knife? I'd prefer to use a shotgun to blow him away in that scenario but I suppose a crossbow would've been lethal enough if the arrow didn't miss.

Literally nothing to do with what I said.

---

If we cannot, in fact, prevent killings and massacres then it is not because such things are somehow inherent to humanity, but because of people like you insisting that we shouldn't even try.

I advocate allowing people to carry weapons because we need to have a way to prevent mass-murder and murder in general. Also, we need to look really really scary to invade with land forces, so we are not invaded.

No you don't.

Guns are a tool for self-defense.

Guns are a tool for shooting things. Shooting things is one way to defend yourself, but that doesn't make guns a tool for self-defence any more than the fact that nails can be used to hang picture frames from means that hammers are a tool for hanging picture frames.

---

Oh, and one stabbing hardly amounts to Canada having mass stabbings instead of mass shootings.

---

I think Yummers may have found a supporter for his campaign to provide free firearms to homeless people.

---

If we cannot, in fact, prevent killings and massacres then it is not because such things are somehow inherent to humanity, but because of people like you insisting that we shouldn't even try.

i really don't feel like getting into an argument with humans,as they tend to go on forever,

You ought not talk about humans as though you aren't one, it makes you look very silly.

but i will leave you with this. if you truly think that mankind can be peaceful,why do you allow people in blue suits to carry around military grade weapons.

I allow no such thing.

to protect you? from who,the peaceful humans?

From dangerous people. I don't often need to be protected from the peaceful people, except when they're being reckless or negligent, which would qualify them as dangerous.

[Galiantus II]

Most of these kids (the shooters) are complete nutters who receive several mean comments over the span of about a week and then decide to bring their fathers 12 gauge into school...

This is probably how I think it pans out:
1. Perpetrator is mildly bullied
2. Perpetrator become very frustrated over, what is probably, a bit of bante
3. Perpetrator steals daddies 12 gauge and smuggles it into school
4. Perpetrator takes out some of the "bullies"
5. Perpetrators take out a couple of unrelated pupils for good measure
6. Perpetrator puts a bullet in his own head
7. Media turns up at the scene to interview traumatised/upset survivors or victims families
8. The whole thing blows over within about two weeks

Teachers carrying guns?

Sounds like a solution to a lot of problems.

[Dakini]

By joining an appropriate club or acquiring a hunting license?


Source.

Also, seems*, seams are on your jeans.

I have done all of those.

300 million guns in the United States. ~100,000 deaths and injuries due to guns in any year. So about .03% of guns injure or kill a person in a year. Including suicides, murders, and accidents. Source.

.03% in any year, so over 10 years, that's 0.3%, over 20 years, that's 0.6%, over 30 years, that's 0.9%, over 40 years, that's 1.2%...

Plus if you actually add the numbers for gun deaths and injuries instead of rounding down as you seem to have done, you actually get closer to 0.04% each year and if you use the lower estimate for the number of guns (because apparently nobody actually knows how many guns are in your country, which is insane), you're on the other side of 0.04%.

[Dakini]

Prove that there are more self-defense killings than homicides.


Without using stupidly biased statistics from the NRA or other such advocates.

Prove that the negative aspects of gun ownership outweigh the positive.

Don't wuss out like that. You made the claim. You prove it.

[BK117B2]

It is the ability to protect myself from someone deranged enough to try and kill me, or anyone else for that matter.

So living in fear is freedom?

They made no mention of living in fear.

[BK117B2]

Exactly. Anyone who wants to commit a mass murder will get a gun.

But they don't have to break the law to do it. Holmes bought his legally, that kid who shot up that elementary school in Connecticut used his mother's legally acquired guns. Harris and Klebold got their guns more or less legally, one through a friend who bought it for them, the other in a "private sale." It's so easy to buy guns in the US, there's no reason to break laws if one is patient. Of course, someone who is raving mad might steal one and start shooting but these planning shootings always seem to start out with easily gotten, legal guns.

They don't always have to break laws to do it, but in 2/3 of the examples you gave, laws WERE broken to get them

[Ifreann]

Most of these kids (the shooters) are complete nutters who receive several mean comments over the span of about a week and then decide to bring their fathers 12 gauge into school...

This is probably how I think it pans out:
1. Perpetrator is mildly bullied
2. Perpetrator become very frustrated over, what is probably, a bit of bante
3. Perpetrator steals daddies 12 gauge and smuggles it into school
4. Perpetrator takes out some of the "bullies"
5. Perpetrators take out a couple of unrelated pupils for good measure
6. Perpetrator puts a bullet in his own head
7. Media turns up at the scene to interview traumatised/upset survivors or victims families
8. The whole thing blows over within about two weeks

Teachers carrying guns?

Sounds like a solution to a lot of problems.

Teachers killing children sounds like a problem to me, not a solution.

[Galiantus II]

You can still stab people, run into crowds with semi-trucks, crash airplanes into buildings, etc. with the exact same outcome.

No, you can't. The outcome will be quite different.

Again, you're acting like the people who do these things are equivalent to earthquakes or other natural disasters that can never be stopped, only reacted to. And that's stupid.

It is not an all or nothing matter, but the consequences of one criminal getting a gun in a gun free society are much more likely to produce extreme outcomes.

Ah yes, the action hero hypothesis.

Which is worse?
A. One criminal gets a hold of a gun and starts shooting unarmed civilians.
B. Ten criminals get guns in ten separate situations, and 50% of the citizens are armed.

The latter is worse.

I advocate allowing people to carry weapons because we need to have a way to prevent mass-murder and murder in general. Also, we need to look really really scary to invade with land forces, so we are not invaded.

No you don't.

Guns are a tool for self-defense.

Guns are a tool for shooting things. Shooting things is one way to defend yourself, but that doesn't make guns a tool for self-defence any more than the fact that nails can be used to hang picture frames from means that hammers are a tool for hanging picture frames.

1. And you are acting like people can be controlled.

2. There are plenty of instances where people have successfully defended themselves with guns. Give them the benefit of the doubt. You are assuming that most mass-shooters are better shots than the top 20% of gun owners, and that is simply not true.

3. The latter also happens to be the situation that deters criminals from breaking the law.

4. So you can read my mind. I see.... I actually DO support gun ownership for the reasons I listed.

5. Hammers are a tool for hitting things. Like people's heads. Now tell me: how are you going to distinguish between a gun and a hammer, when they both do the exact same thing - impel things.

[Galiantus II]

Teachers carrying guns?

Sounds like a solution to a lot of problems.

Teachers killing children sounds like a problem to me, not a solution.

Not what I meant. But lol.

[Ifreann]

No, you can't. The outcome will be quite different.

Again, you're acting like the people who do these things are equivalent to earthquakes or other natural disasters that can never be stopped, only reacted to. And that's stupid.


Ah yes, the action hero hypothesis.


The latter is worse.

No you don't.

Guns are a tool for shooting things. Shooting things is one way to defend yourself, but that doesn't make guns a tool for self-defence any more than the fact that nails can be used to hang picture frames from means that hammers are a tool for hanging picture frames.

1. And you are acting like people can be controlled.

No, I'm acting like people can be arrested. Cos, you know, they can be.

2. There are plenty of instances where people have successfully defended themselves with guns.

I'm aware.

Shooting things is one way to defend yourself

Give them the benefit of the doubt. You are assuming that most mass-shooters are better shots than the top 20% of gun owners, and that is simply not true.

I'm not assuming that at all. I am acknowledging the fact that having a gun does not make one an action hero.

3. The latter also happens to be the situation that deters criminals from breaking the law.

No it doesn't.

4. So you can read my mind. I see.... I actually DO support gun ownership for the reasons I listed.

What I meant is that you don't need to have an armed populace to look scary and thus deter invaders.

5. Hammers are a tool for hitting things. Like people's heads.

And guns shoot things. Like I said.

Are you actually reading my posts, or just picking out a few words to respond to?

Now tell me: how are you going to distinguish between a gun and a hammer, when they both do the exact same thing - impel things.

Well they tend to look quite different, for one. For another they don't both do the exact same thing. Guns fire various kinds of projectiles. Hammers, as you put it, hit things. I suppose you could hit things with a gun, but most guns probably aren't designed for that kind of thing and you'll just damage them.

Why are you even asking me this? Do you think that because I support restricting access to firearms I must want to restrict access to anything that could conceivable be used as a weapon?