Another school shooting in the US (3 Viewers)

[mr EaZy]

what i was trying to point out was that- this religious identity thing or any form of linking an identity with a label can be applied to anyone- so dont play around with it.

 

[veridis]

Try not to use 'what you have heard about' as a reliable measure of things like crime rate. America has roughly 15 times our population. Consider a case where america has twice the rate of school shootings (shootings per 1000) - you would expect to hear about 30 american shootings for every one shooting in Australia. The 30:1 ratio would blow out of proportion a rate which is really only double.

think about it, you hear about a lot more than 30 US school shootings for every one in australia. the rate is not double and your logic is based just as much on conjecture as his. look back and count over the last 5 years the school shootings in america, you'll reach 30 quite quickly. look got school shootings in australia and i cant think of any apart from the "plot" this year and the monash shooting which. comparing US school shootings to Australian shootings and the difference in rate is far beyond a simple population argument. look at the gun related homocide stats given earlies and US has almost 10 times the rate of shootings. to me thats not "really only double"

It's silly to say that a given population is more 'psychopathic' than another and even sillier to use something like highschool shootings (or shootings in general) to judge the level of 'psychopathy'. Theft, extortion and violent crimes (not involving shooting) are indicative of pyschopathic tendencies (I have doubts as to whether psychopaths would commit suicide as is often the case in school shootings given the selfish tendencies of the psychopathic personality). Also, as you have pointed out, you have to take multiple factors into account. It is likely that the wide availability of firearms in the US would make a significant contribution to the number of shootings that take place there.

you start out so stupid but end so smart.

 

[KFunk]

think about it, you hear about a lot more than 30 US school shootings for every one in australia. the rate is not double and your logic is based just as much on conjecture as his. look back and count over the last 5 years the school shootings in america, you'll reach 30 quite quickly. look got school shootings in australia and i cant think of any apart from the "plot" this year and the monash shooting which. comparing US school shootings to Australian shootings and the difference in rate is far beyond a simple population argument. look at the gun related homocide stats given earlies and US has almost 10 times the rate of shootings. to me thats not "really only double"

you start out so stupid but end so smart.

"Consider a case" = a hint to the reader that I'm creating a hypothetical. Good job showing that my imaginary situation is just that: imaginary.

 

[daledugahole]

I think that the reason there are so many more school shootings in the US as opposed to other countries like Australia is the availability of guns. It'd be a lot harder for a school student in Australia to find a gun than it would be for an American student who could find one in their own house that their parents keep for 'protection'.

 

[HotShot]

I think that the reason there are so many more school shootings in the US as opposed to other countries like Australia is the availability of guns. It'd be a lot harder for a school student in Australia to find a gun than it would be for an American student who could find one in their own house that their parents keep for 'protection'.

so naturally you would expect the americans to impose tigher restriction on gun ownerships, gun licences etc. BUT no they are bunch stupid people who think they need a gun for 'self defence'.

 

[daledugahole]

I'm totally against guns being legal and I think it is totally irresponsible to allow anyone to own a deadly weapon that serves only the purpose of hurting and killing people.

I think if guns were illegal people would have no need to own them for reasons of 'self defence.' I would never want a gun in my house and I feel much safer knowing there isn't gun in my house but that is also because I know that the probablity of my neighbours being armed is extremely low.

I think it's extremely unrealistic that leaders of the US will wake up tommorrow and think 'hey lets get rid of guns'. It's also extremely unrealistic as the US market is so flooded with guns it would be impossible to recall that number of weapons without problems. Ultimately it would be prefrable if there were no guns but tighter restrictions on gun ownership seems to be moving in the right direction.

Before I was merely stating that it is so easy for a high school student to get a gun in the states. I have a friend who lives over there and she has several guns in her house which her family keeps for protection. If there are guns lying around your house and you really want to hurt people then it's not that hard to carry through and shoot someone.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I'm totally against guns being legal and I think it is totally irresponsible to allow anyone to own a deadly weapon that serves only the purpose of hurting and killing people.

Except theives and rapists, since they're going to have them anyway.

I think if guns were illegal people would have no need to own them for reasons of 'self defence.' I would never want a gun in my house and I feel much safer knowing there isn't gun in my house but that is also because I know that the probablity of my neighbours being armed is extremely low.

Would you feel much safer knowing there was someone else with a gun, in your house who wanted to harm you?

I think it's extremely unrealistic that leaders of the US will wake up tommorrow and think 'hey lets get rid of guns'. It's also extremely unrealistic as the US market is so flooded with guns it would be impossible to recall that number of weapons without problems. Ultimately it would be prefrable if there were no guns but tighter restrictions on gun ownership seems to be moving in the right direction.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Before I was merely stating that it is so easy for a high school student to get a gun in the states. I have a friend who lives over there and she has several guns in her house which her family keeps for protection. If there are guns lying around your house and you really want to hurt people then it's not that hard to carry through and shoot someone.

In an ideal world, everyone would carry a gun and hence no one would ever use one.

 

[daledugahole]

In an ideal world no one would need a gun, hence no one would have one.

Remind me never to stumble into your Utopia.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

No genius, because guns exist. You can't pretend they don't.

 

[daledugahole]

I know they exist it's an inescapable and horrible truth but I was talking about an ideal world, a world that definately doesn't exist.

 

[HotShot]

I cant understand how owning a gun legally in america makes you feel safer. I mean that just makes you into a target to rob for ur guns. And thieves know how to do their shit and they wouldnt afraid. Once a thief gets gun.. i dont know whats the point of the having a gun for defence.

U have knives.. saws, sledgehammers etc - but why a gun?

The gun is sophistcated weapon that primarily purpose if for law enforcement and for sport/game.

it has no purpose in defence its an offensive weapon. people cant use guns as defence maybe kevlar?

 

[Aryanbeauty]

It's a long story starting from the beginning the English settlers conqured america from red Indians, guns were a requirements just to stay alive and to protect themselves from red indians and other european colonists. Then the civil war made the people especially whites in the south distrust the government as a result of abolition of slavery. It only strengthened gun owners resolve to bear arms. Today it is very unlikely that the American gov't will use military to massacre its own people, but as the american citizens have the rights for more than two centuries, it is extremely difficult to take it away. Just like it is difficult to take away freedom of speech and religion in america, it is difficult to take away right to bear arms as it is included in bill of rights. To amend the constitution it requires 2/3 of members voting in each house and then approved by 38 states. Most southern and Mid west states are gonna reject it so it have no chance in the Congress although I believe most americans support gun bans.

 

[HotShot]

It's a long story starting from the beginning the English settlers conqured america from red Indians, guns were a requirements just to stay alive and to protect themselves from red indians and other european colonists. Then the civil war made the people especially whites in the south distrust the government as a result of abolition of slavery. It only strengthened gun owners resolve to bear arms. Today it is very unlikely that the American gov't will use military to massacre its own people, but as the american citizens have the rights for more than two centuries, it is extremely difficult to take it away. Just like it is difficult to take away freedom of speech and religion in america, it is difficult to take away right to bear arms as it is included in bill of rights. To amend the constitution it requires 2/3 of members voting in each house and then approved by 38 states. Most southern and Mid west states are gonna reject it so it have no chance in the Congress although I believe most americans support gun bans.

'u dont need federal ban on guns - state law would be sufficient or even regional bans.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

'u dont need federal ban on guns - state law would be sufficient or even regional bans.

"Ban" violate the US Constitution. The Constitution is above all laws passed by congress, state or local govt, and override any laws passed against it unless amended. You cannot ban anything in the bill of rights or in the Constitution unless the constitution is amended. They can make restrictions on number of guns one can own or the frequency they can buy but not ban by either local, state or federal govt. A number of states do this.