School shooting

[Arumdaum]

Enjoying the killing of animals is sick.

But carrying on ancient traditions is not. Unless you'd like to try and say that burying the dead and having funerals is "sick".

We shouldn't really give a shit on whether something's tradition or not, and care more about what it actually is.

Human sacrifice used to be an ancient tradition in Mexico.

Enjoying the killing of animals is sick.



Most manslaughters aren't committed by "criminals" planning their crimes, but by people losing their tempers, by a drunk person, by a madman having a madness attack, ... Banning guns will prevent all those, which are much more frequent than organized crimes.

And even for organized crime, if the mere fact of owning/carrying a gun can lead them to lots of trouble, it'll be much harder for them to move around with guns, and to get their guns and amunitions. So even for organized crime, it'll lower criminality.

"madness attack"
Sounds like good science to me.

Ever heard of psychology? There's such things as fits of madness you know.

[Andaluciae]

THIS is why we need mandatory gun safety courses in schools. They have driver's ed, so why not have shooter's ed?

a "Shooters Ed" most likely wouldn't have made a difference. Driver's Ed is meant to prevent accidents and thoughtless, reckless driving. Shooting up a school is totally different. Its a conscious decision he made to attack others.

Because if I went and shot a school I'd be going for as many kills as possible. Even if he was going on a subconscious level to not outright kill, a bit more wounded could've been had.

The kid was likely torn up by his decision seeing as he turned himself in. Also perhaps it was a six shooter and he saved a bullet for himself but could not go through with it in the end. Pure speculation but possible.

At least one gun he owned was a revolver.

http://woio.images.worldnow.com/images/658231_G.jpg

That's a photo he posted through Twitter. WOIO picked it up.

[Transeden]

Humans don't like to have something for a long time and then all of a sudden be told they cannot have it anymore. We want it. We crave it. We'll do anything to have the normality that we had before whatever it was was taken away from us.

That's a real problem, yes. It was a great mistake to allow guns at first, and this mistake is not easy to undo. But once we are convinced that US would be much better without the guns, we can start to devise a plan to progressively remove them, starting by public awarness programs, ... The transition will not be easy, but the end result (a safer place for everyone, much less people getting killed) is worth is. And the sooner we start, the more lives we'll save.

The right to own a gun is in the US Constitution, you cannot ban guns.

[Southern Patriots]

Humans don't like to have something for a long time and then all of a sudden be told they cannot have it anymore. We want it. We crave it. We'll do anything to have the normality that we had before whatever it was was taken away from us.

That's a real problem, yes. It was a great mistake to allow guns at first, and this mistake is not easy to undo. But once we are convinced that US would be much better without the guns, we can start to devise a plan to progressively remove them, starting by public awarness programs, ... The transition will not be easy, but the end result (a safer place for everyone, much less people getting killed) is worth is. And the sooner we start, the more lives we'll save.

Again, a disarmed population =/= lives saved.

[Neo Arcad]

a "Shooters Ed" most likely wouldn't have made a difference. Driver's Ed is meant to prevent accidents and thoughtless, reckless driving. Shooting up a school is totally different. Its a conscious decision he made to attack others.



The kid was likely torn up by his decision seeing as he turned himself in. Also perhaps it was a six shooter and he saved a bullet for himself but could not go through with it in the end. Pure speculation but possible.

At least one gun he owned was a revolver.

http://woio.images.worldnow.com/images/658231_G.jpg

That's a photo he posted through Twitter. WOIO picked it up.

The other one is a semi-automatic pistol. If all he brought was the revolver, he was CLEARLY retarded.

[Transeden]

What about hunting, a sport that has been passed on from generation to generation, that is part of tradition and is a way people can provide food for their families during hard times?

Enjoying the killing of animals is sick.

So if you were dying of starvation in the forest you would allow an animal, something that can sustain you with necessary nutrients to live, to just walk away because you think killing animals is sick?

[Farnhamia]

Yeah! Let's turn our schools into armed camps! Let's give 'em so AA guns too! And a machine gun or three!

Why do you have to jump to extremes? Though your British brain, mollycoddled as it is by the Nanny State, may not be able to grasp this concept fully, guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens tend to PREVENT violent crimes. It's a shocker, I know. But criminals are deterred from shooting willy-nilly when everyone's got a gun to stop them with.

Like the fellow at the Giffords shooting in Arizona, who almost blew away the people subduing the shooter? Right, because all those armed people would know exactly what the situation was and who was the bad guy and who an innocent.

[Arumdaum]

That's a real problem, yes. It was a great mistake to allow guns at first, and this mistake is not easy to undo. But once we are convinced that US would be much better without the guns, we can start to devise a plan to progressively remove them, starting by public awarness programs, ... The transition will not be easy, but the end result (a safer place for everyone, much less people getting killed) is worth is. And the sooner we start, the more lives we'll save.

Again, a disarmed population =/= lives saved.

Those are rather unrelated.

They were killed by the state. Civilians didn't kill each other with guns.

[Neo Arcad]

Enjoying the killing of animals is sick.

So if you were dying of starvation in the forest you would allow an animal, something that can sustain you with necessary nutrients to live, to just walk away because you think killing animals is sick?

Of course he wouldn't. Liberals are hypocritical by nature; they only abide by their principles when it's convenient.

[Cromarty]

Yeah! Let's turn our schools into armed camps! Let's give 'em so AA guns too! And a machine gun or three!

Why do you have to jump to extremes? Though your British brain, mollycoddled as it is by the Nanny State, may not be able to grasp this concept fully, guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens tend to PREVENT violent crimes. It's a shocker, I know. But criminals are deterred from shooting willy-nilly when everyone's got a gun to stop them with.

Yeah! Let's give everyone and his mum a gun! That can't possibly go wrong!

[Southern Patriots]

Again, a disarmed population =/= lives saved.

They were killed by the state. Civilians didn't kill each other with guns.

Yes.

[Azhuru]

They were killed by the state. Civilians didn't kill each other with guns.

Yes.

Actually, that's why the 2nd amendment is there. To prevent that kind of thing from taking place.

[Lilatia]

What about hunting, a sport that has been passed on from generation to generation, that is part of tradition and is a way people can provide food for their families during hard times?

Enjoying the killing of animals is sick.

You do realize also that if guns were banned only criminals would get guns, therefore making the populace defensless against crime and violence

Most manslaughters aren't committed by "criminals" planning their crimes, but by people losing their tempers, by a drunk person, by a madman having a madness attack, ... Banning guns will prevent all those, which are much more frequent than organized crimes.

And even for organized crime, if the mere fact of owning/carrying a gun can lead them to lots of trouble, it'll be much harder for them to move around with guns, and to get their guns and amunitions. So even for organized crime, it'll lower criminality.

If a "madman" or a drunk person or simply an angry person loses their temper and uses a gun to kill what would stop them from using ANYTHING nearby to kill?

[Pope Joan]

CNN reporter: You have wounded students at your hospital?
Nurse: Yes, one in serious condition, one in stable condition.
Reporter: But they will be fine, right? There is nothing life threatening?
Nurse: One is in serious condition. One is in stable condition.
Reporter: Do you know if there are student shooting victims in other hospitals who may have more serious conditions?
Nurse: I have heard unofficially that some of these students are in other hospitals but I do not know for sure.
Reporter: But these will be ok, right?
Nurse: One is in serious condition, one is in stable condition...
NEWS UPDATE: A student has now died from these injuries.

Nurse: Make that just one student in stable condition.

[Neo Arcad]

Why do you have to jump to extremes? Though your British brain, mollycoddled as it is by the Nanny State, may not be able to grasp this concept fully, guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens tend to PREVENT violent crimes. It's a shocker, I know. But criminals are deterred from shooting willy-nilly when everyone's got a gun to stop them with.

Yeah! Let's give everyone and his mum a gun! That can't possibly go wrong!

I don't propose to do that. What I DO propose is to make guns a more available commodity, and to have students take gun courses. A good analogy is cars- you need a licence to own or drive one, and you have to prove that you're qualified to do so. Because of the way our country is structured, and its immense size, we need more cars than you Europeans do.

[Arumdaum]

Enjoying the killing of animals is sick.

So if you were dying of starvation in the forest you would allow an animal, something that can sustain you with necessary nutrients to live, to just walk away because you think killing animals is sick?

Anyone would eat anything if they were starving to death, regardless of whether they though it was sick or not.

Also, threadjack.

[Farnhamia]

Enjoying the killing of animals is sick.



Most manslaughters aren't committed by "criminals" planning their crimes, but by people losing their tempers, by a drunk person, by a madman having a madness attack, ... Banning guns will prevent all those, which are much more frequent than organized crimes.

And even for organized crime, if the mere fact of owning/carrying a gun can lead them to lots of trouble, it'll be much harder for them to move around with guns, and to get their guns and amunitions. So even for organized crime, it'll lower criminality.

If a "madman" or a drunk person or simply an angry person loses their temper and uses a gun to kill what would stop them from using ANYTHING nearby to kill?

Nothing, really, save that it's so much easier with a gun. You can stay out of reach of the person pissing you off and still inflict damage.

[United Dependencies]

Yes.

Actually, that's why the 2nd amendment is there. To prevent that kind of thing from taking place.

That's actually the opposite of what the founding fathers wanted. The second amendment was put in place to resist invasion from outside the country. The whole point of the constitution was to empower the central government and control the mob.

edit:and honestly, our pistols and shotguns will be no use in any attempt to overthrow the government.

[Arumdaum]

Yes.

Actually, that's why the 2nd amendment is there. To prevent that kind of thing from taking place.

Even if our government did that to us, we still wouldn't stand a chance.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Man, things were so much easier back when we had dueling.

[Lilatia]

If a "madman" or a drunk person or simply an angry person loses their temper and uses a gun to kill what would stop them from using ANYTHING nearby to kill?

Nothing, really, save that it's so much easier with a gun. You can stay out of reach of the person pissing you off and still inflict damage.

Yeah but if someone really wants to inflict harm they're going to do it regardless of the tools nearby.

[Cromarty]

Yeah! Let's give everyone and his mum a gun! That can't possibly go wrong!

I don't propose to do that. What I DO propose is to make guns a more available commodity, and to have students take gun courses.

As opposed to, you know, actually learning something useful.

A good analogy is cars- you need a licence to own or drive one, and you have to prove that you're qualified to do so. Because of the way our country is structured, and its immense size, we need more cars than you Europeans do.

No you need more cars because your public transport is shit. Fix that and you'll need less cars.

[Azhuru]

I love it how this started as a sympathy thread but now its a gun rights thread.

[Azhuru]

Man, things were so much easier back when we had dueling.

I want dueling to be reinstated. So badly. It would be brilliant.

[Genivaria]

It has nothing to do with gun control, it has to do with bullying.