Another shooting

[SlartyBartFast]

SlartyBartFast: My lawn. You. Off.

This isn't your lawn. If you've got an issue with what I said, out with it. I'd hope you can have an intelligent discussion.

You think schools are chosen at random?

What was Columbine? What was the recent shooting of a director by a bullied teen? Here in Hudson a bullied teen was arrested for supporting the Dawson shooter on-line and making threats of his own. The recent shooting was supposedly linked to revenge for some event in the shooter's childhood.

The Dawson shooter, while not connected to that college, from his on-line rants was obviously marginalised by his peers during his school years.

Have YOU ever woken up in a panic on a school day? Thrown up just knowing you have to go to school and be forced to meet your tormentors? Had to fear for your physical safety because someone just picked you at random as their punching bag and play thing?

NONE of that justifies the actions of the shooters. I'm glad they're dead. But wouldn't it be better to stop it before it happens an no innocent lives were lost either?

[tropical_fishy]

You know what's interesting? It seems like before, it was kids shooting up schools. They were pushed too far, or whatever the excuse was. Now it's older men shooting up schools as a way to get at and molest teenage females. That's a scary, scary change. Both this and the recent Colorado shooting... disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

[Steelrat]

This isn't your lawn. If you've got an issue with what I said, out with it. I'd hope you can have an intelligent discussion.

Wow. I think he is right. It's not your lawn Ricker. Sorry.

[beam]

Just to throw something else in here. We have had two schools attacked by wack jobs, one with guns (Dunblane) and the other was a machete and I think a rifle, plus we had own very own sniper in Hungerford (all of this almost 10 years ago) Recently there have been a couple of shootings, racial motivated and due to this motivation definately the bad guys had the guns, not regular people so before anyone says I am slurring racial stances...also I didn't say to which race the people were connected
Anyhow point is after Dunblane all guns above a .22 were banned (shotguns are still allowed) , so the only people with access to guns are criminals which will always happen regardless of the laws of the country. However since private ownership of guns is not allowed in the UK the kids (or adults) that have a beef with whoever have no easy access to these weapons. where as in the US as seen on AO many of you own guns which can be got at or 'borrowed', not saying AO gun owners are lax just that the simple fact you have them means others 'could' get to them. many of the school shoot ups by kids have in general turned out to be the father/mothers handgun/s. take those guns away any then they (the people with the screws loose) have to resort to criminal activity to obtain the gun, so there are greater chances for that person to be caught before they do any damage.
So ban the guns and the problem will not go away totally but it will certainly drop in so far as incidents such as this are concerned.
The main problem with a ban in the US is the sheer numbers of guns involved, plus you will get a lot of people screaming about their so called rights...sorry guys you ain't in any danger of an invasion so you don't need the guns. But if you want to think that you are, well anything I say won't change your mind. Eventually your goverment (whichever party) will call enough is enough but how many children will die before this happens.
We don't have metal detectors at our schools (though I think a couple might do in some rather rough areas, but they are looking for knives not guns) as in general we don't need them...I wonder why...oh we don't allow private ownership of guns, so our schoools don't get shot up. BTW this isn't the UK is better than the US kind of reply it is simply we have a system that works. Sure we do have shoootings in this country but by criminals NOT disgruntled teenagers or adults bearing a grudge from their school days.

I know you can make numbers say anything you want if you present them in a certain way but totals are totals however you compile them.

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm it makes for some scary reading.

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise an even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

An example of how the numbers can be fudged is how other surveys state that Gun related deaths have dropped compared to previous years but the numbers of deaths are still big numbers.

Take my reply in the manner in which is has been made. I am NOT knocking people who wish to own guns but the simple fact of allowed ownership is one of the major causes of incidents that this thread was started about.

Liberty vs. Securty Mark

That's the issue. As a country that values the personal liberty to own a firearm, we open ourselves up to being shot at by the populace at large. Is the answer really to take away the guns? Come on...the shooting of another person is just a symptom of a deeper issue.

And just so you know...2nd amendment...yeah, that's not just there in case an alien nation invades us...it's there in case we need to bear arms against our own country...the U.S. God help us that it would NEVER come to that.

[MarkM]

Liberty vs. Securty Mark

That's the issue. As a country that values the personal liberty to own a firearm, we open ourselves up to being shot at by the populace at large. Is the answer really to take away the guns? Come on...the shooting of another person is just a symptom of a deeper issue.

And just so you know...2nd amendment...yeah, that's not just there in case an alien nation invades us...it's there in case we need to bear arms against our own country...the U.S. God help us that it would NEVER come to that.

I understand the reply you have given me and it is the same one trotted out every time anyone and I do mean anyone calls for arms control. The 2nd amendment will continue to be argued for many years to come it doesn't change that when it was written the newly formed United States was in fear of invasion from Great Britain and so the amendment was passed to allow the populace to supplement the regular army in case of invasion, hence the term 'militia' is used. You will not agree with me since you brought the 2nd amendment subject up.

Your 1st paragraph, yes the you could say that however take away the legal guns and you will restrict the shooting incidents. I am not saying for one second that killings would stop ever as illegal guns will still be available but they are (currently) in lesser numbers compared to the currently legally held ones. Take away the instrument and then work on the causes for the gun being used as the cure.

We will not agree on the 2nd amendment subject, however you should be able see what I am getting at with the other point.

[beam]

I understand the reply you have given me and it is the same one trotted out every time anyone and I do mean anyone calls for arms control. The 2nd amendment will continue to be argued for many years to come it doesn't change that when it was written the newly formed United States was in fear of invasion from Great Britain and so the amendment was passed to allow the populace to supplement the regular army in case of invasion, hence the term 'militia' is used. You will not agree with me since you brought the 2nd amendment subject up.

Your 1st paragraph, yes the you could say that however take away the legal guns and you will restrict the shooting incidents. I am not saying for one second that killings would stop ever as illegal guns will still be available but they are (currently) in lesser numbers compared to the currently legally held ones. Take away the instrument and then work on the causes for the gun being used as the cure.

We will not agree on the 2nd amendment subject, however you should be able see what I am getting at with the other point.

I totally see what you're getting at. But the fact of the matter is this...in America, guns are not only a right to own, but they are considered "good" for many people. I would say the vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. consider having a gun a "good" thing. So why take the "good" thing away from the law abiding citizen who a) has the right to own a gun and b) gets enjoyment out of owning a gun? Just because some wackos offed people with them? I tell you, we would be much safer banning driving. Because some people drink and drive...or how about not banning driving...ban drinking. When did BANNING something EVER WORK?

If banning something worked...let's ban crime.

[Recon by Fire]

Please, let's not presume to wave the UK as a wonderful crime free environment.


Why do people do this? Because they are F'd up in the head, there is no sane answer for an insane act. I saw today that his notes listed some clues to his acts:

1. He admitted molesting some under-age family members several years ago.
2. He has never gotten over the loss of his own infant child.
3. He said he was "getting revenge"...

So somehow this all adds up to shooting and killing several young girls in an Amish school. He has earned a special place in hell and I hope he burns bright and hot for all eternity. You have issues, cannot cope, etc...fine, shoot yourself, quite wasting our oxygen. But don't bestow your losership upon others in your exit.

[bornl33t]

why didn't they include Switzerland or Israel in that statistic? oh and per capita does make a difference.
I'm curious to see what Americas population looks like in comparison to those other countries. I've never cared till now.

[Thordic]

If you run the US per capita numbers, they are still somewhat high.

But every time I see those stats compiled, it includes "legal" shootings involving cops shooting a suspect. Which further skews the numbers since cops in some countries, such as Britain, don't carry firearms.

Personally I don't see why a Canadian and an Englishman are here debating US gun control laws. You don't like it? Don't live here. Wait, thats right, you DON'T live here. So who cares, you like the gun control laws in your country, thats fine. The majority of the people here in the US are comfortable with how our current gun laws are set up, and thats just the way it is.

[MarkM]

Please, let's not presume to wave the UK as a wonderful crime free environment.

I didn't I quite clearly said we have gun related crime here, our numbers are simply lower due to the fact that handguns are banned, as the only avenues to get guns are illegal channels.

If you run the US per capita numbers, they are still somewhat high.

But every time I see those stats compiled, it includes "legal" shootings involving cops shooting a suspect. Which further skews the numbers since cops in some countries, such as Britain, don't carry firearms.

Personally I don't see why a Canadian and an Englishman are here debating US gun control laws. You don't like it? Don't live here. Wait, thats right, you DON'T live here. So who cares, you like the gun control laws in your country, thats fine. The majority of the people here in the US are comfortable with how our current gun laws are set up, and thats just the way it is.

Again, you can skew numbers to help any cause, or debate. As for not living where you are, well that took a leap didn't it? This thread is full of concerns,worries and outrage as to what has happened (thread subject) I have given you a possible solution and you appear to not like this solution. If you are a legal gun owner then I would expect this due to your 2nd Amendment. As I have already said to another if you are holding that up as your reason for ownership then no amount of debate from my side will change that view. We, as in you and me have had this exact conversation before. Just take a step back and understand you can't complain about a situation and then fall back on 'that's just the way it is'. Debate and possible solutions are what made your country how it is today, this applies to my country too. Take any country that has done something that isn't seen as 'good' and of course you will shout that it is wrong, as you are using your own countrys values and laws and applying them to another, is this correct? Yes it is is, however is it morally correct? Yes, in the eyes of the country suggesting for the same views to be taken. Ask a person from the country in question if they agree and the answer will come back as 'No'. This is exactly what you have just done. You can apply the last reasoning from me in lot of other situations both current and historical. I know it isn't going to change your mind but be aware of other peoples views, that in this case (mine) have been put forward without passion.

[SlartyBartFast]

Personally I don't see why a Canadian and an Englishman are here debating US gun control laws.

Funny. Is there another Canadian in this thread? I stayed away from the gun control issue.

But that being said, discussion and solutions about problems in society benefit from larger view points ands ideas.

That and Canada has the unfortunate place of having the first shooting by a student in a school in North America. 1973 or 75 in Ontario I believe.

These latest cases are creepy as it seems it's a sexual devience directed towards young girls that drove the shooters. But then again the Dawson shooter seemed to be most agressive to girls (more women injured, only one killed was a woman) and the Polytehnique shooting spree was completely directed against women (16 killed).

When the general reaction to someone with perverse thoughts or problems seems to be along the lines of Recons thgouhts "But don't bestow your losership upon others", how does society find these people and help or control them before they snap, or how does a person who is uncomfortable with their inner demons approach anyone for help?

More guns/Less guns are both simplistic and incomplete solutions. You can never eliminate all weapons (as in the UK airguns began to be used, in Canada legal registered guns were used), you can never be everywhere with protection (unless you desire an Orwelian society and give up your freedom for security and didn't Ben Franklin have something to say about that?).

[SCpoloRicker]

I'm going to fisk this briefly, and to start, my initial point was about "High school is so terrible, the horror, the horror."

I know that's not all, but you come back to it, and again, meh.

This isn't your lawn. If you've got an issue with what I said, out with it. I'd hope you can have an intelligent discussion.

You think schools are chosen at random? of course not.

What was Columbine? What was the recent shooting of a director by a bullied teen? Here in Hudson a bullied teen was arrested for supporting the Dawson shooter on-line and making threats of his own. The recent shooting was supposedly linked to revenge for some event in the shooter's childhood. Supposedly? Maybe there is a copycat effect here?]

The Dawson shooter, while not connected to that college, from his on-line rants was obviously marginalised by his peers during his school years. Being marginalized doesn't justify/explain becoming violent.

Have YOU ever woken up in a panic on a school day? Thrown up just knowing you have to go to school and be forced to meet your tormentors? Had to fear for your physical safety because someone just picked you at random as their punching bag and play thing? Uh, no. Listen, being a teenager is tough. I'm sure I had days where I was down in the dumps. But I think you're overreacting here. You create your own reality.

NONE of that justifies the actions of the shooters. I'm glad they're dead. But wouldn't it be better to stop it before it happens an no innocent lives were lost either? Absolutley. I never disagreed that these events are horrible. I don't think radical gun control is a solution.

Again, my smarmy response was entirely due to your rants about how difficult things are for kids in high school. I don't buy it. Apologies for tone.

edit: Dangit, you got the Franklin quote.

[SlartyBartFast]

Again, my smarmy response was entirely due to your rants about how difficult things are for kids in high school. I don't buy it. Apologies for tone.

Apologies for tone accepted.

However, if you don't beleive my claims about high school, you were simply one of the lucky ones.

How others treat you or your difficulties in interacting with others does not excuse behaviour IMO. But, we expect bullied children to put up with things "and create their own reality" when we would never consider forcing an adult to put up with the same.

If you're answer to my scenario is "Uh no." then you really have no place belittling the situation by generalising teenage years as "tough". Because you really have no clue and are confusing your awkward years with those that really had a rough time of it.

Would you tell a battered wife that she should learn to get along with her abusive husband? Would you dismiss the complains of a battered woman by saying that relationships are "tough"? Well...

While being marginalised certainly does not excuse behaviour, it certainly explains a lot. If helped to become accepted/acceptable the inexcusable justification and indeed the motive is lost.

[SCpoloRicker]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

But, we expect bullied children to put up with things "and create their own reality" when we would never consider forcing an adult to put up with the same

The real world is a lot tougher than high school. Losing your job, then your house beats getting picked on at lunch. So, yes, my position is "uh no."

Would you tell a battered wife that she should learn to get along with her abusive husband?

No, I would tell her to leave, and possibly to press charges.

Thanks for being civil, I realize I may have come across too strongly.

[SlartyBartFast]

The real world is a lot tougher than high school.

And "Picked on"? I'm not talking about being picked on.

Losing your job is certainly worse than losing your lunch money. But fearing for your life IS NOT being "picked on".

An abused person needs to feel empowered even to just report their abusers. And be certain that action will be taken once the report is made. An abused person in a relationship is lucky that they can leave. There's no way to avoid going to school, they don't let you leave.

By the same token those that aren't abused as far as fearing for their lives are concerned, if they did not learn to deal with stresses constructively when in less important situations like at school are more likely to "go off the deep end" when faced with greater stresses in later life.