or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › School shootings. Europe vs. US.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

School shootings. Europe vs. US.

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]That lousy euro-liberal. Doesn´t he ever stop his "Americans are ignorant"-rants and "We Europeans are better than You" speeches. I´m fed up with that "we have culture and you don´t" attitude. Always "them vs. us, isn´t it?<hr></blockquote>

No I guarantee that thats not my mission (At least not this time).

Well actually I shouldn´t be making jokes about it because the situation is seriously. A couple of days ago we experienced a school shooting episode. Something that is very seldom here. What interested me was how people reacted to it and how it differed from the reactions in US when the same thing happenes.

So please answer the following:

1) What first come to mind as the reason for people to go into schools and start shooting people?

2) What can be done to prevent the same thing from happening in the future?.

PLEASE don´t read others answers. Its a little sociological experiment (Out of interest. Not part of any of my Uni work) and afaiac there is no right or wrong answers.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #2 of 63
--- not a matter to be joked about, sorry ! ---

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #3 of 63
If you're talking about an american's perception of American school shootings, here goes:

1. cause: our gun culture, where people like Kip Kinkel's Dad gives him guns despite his mental condition.

2. prevention: uh..., hmmm... You got me on that one. I think it's a social contagion that media coverage has exacerbated, and will just go away with time. Actually, I think it already has basically gone away here.
post #4 of 63
Do you refer to shooting in germany :

1)
- Increase of violence among the population

- acess to guns.

- More people thinking they are not responsible of they lack of sucess in life, they think if they not suceed it's the fault of others and society in general.

2) Prevention means answering to the previous question :
- reduce tension and violence in society : and this led me to another question : why our society is becoming more violent
- guns control more efficient
- change minds : better ask for the impossible
post #5 of 63
Guns are a tool, not a cause.

Thank you, and goodnight.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #6 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Guns are a tool, not a cause.

Thank you, and goodnight.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes but's it an efficient tool : you cannot kill 18 people with your fist or even an axe. Luckyly we cannot buy a nuclear bomb for the moment : you can be sure that a fool will use it one day.

I am confident with you Groverat : i am sure that you will never use a gun for other matter than protecting your self or your family against criminal, but unfortunately there is some few crazy people in our society, who seems to be normal and who will suddenly become bloody avengers. The question is : how we can prevent this people to have guns or efficients weapons ?

[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
post #7 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Guns are a tool, not a cause.

Thank you, and goodnight.</strong><hr></blockquote> And if you don't have the tool you can't do the task
Lose your dreams and you may lose your mind
Reply
Lose your dreams and you may lose your mind
Reply
post #8 of 63
You can kill many many people with a knife. Wasn't it only a few years back that a man in Scotland (I believe it was) killed 8-10 people in a school with a knife?

Also, my only point was that guns are not a cause, so outlawing them or restricting access to them only addresses a symptom, not the illness. And also while addressing a mere symptom you infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Which is naughty, in my opinion.

[quote]i am sure that you will never use a gun for other matter than protecting your self or your family against criminal, but unfortunately there is some few crazy people in our society, who seems to be normal and who will suddenly become bloody avengers.<hr></blockquote>

Here is a question I assume we will answer differently:

Do we protect against the few by taking away the rights of the many?

I say "no", I guess you say "yes". You may not want a gun so you see no problem with removing them all. But what of the people who do want them?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #9 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>You can kill many many people with a knife. Wasn't it only a few years back that a man in Scotland (I believe it was) killed 8-10 people in a school with a knife?

Also, my only point was that guns are not a cause, so outlawing them or restricting access to them only addresses a symptom, not the illness. And also while addressing a mere symptom you infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Which is naughty, in my opinion.



Here is a question I assume we will answer differently:

Do we protect against the few by taking away the rights of the many?

I say "no", I guess you say "yes". You may not want a gun so you see no problem with removing them all. But what of the people who do want them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
you point interesting arguments about rights. And i agree for the moment that i don't want to have a gun, because i have kids and i do not want to have accidents : i can put a gun in a strong box, but it's worthless unless you can have it at your disposition quickly.
But my question was how to stop giving guns to dangerous people. I assume by your answer you say that the only solution is to remove all guns. Perhaps it's nearly impossible to make an efficient selective solution.
post #10 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Guns are a tool, not a cause.
</strong><hr></blockquote>That's why everyone by law should be forced to at least own two, one hand gun and one automatic rifle . . .

- T.I.
MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) / 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5 / 8GB RAM / 500GB SSD
Reply
MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) / 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5 / 8GB RAM / 500GB SSD
Reply
post #11 of 63
i'll add that everyone have a driving license and everybody will agree it's normal, maybe we can do the same thing for guns.I'll add that many europeans countries have this system, but he is not perfect : see the german drama, or the drama in Nanterres France one month ago.
post #12 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

So please answer the following:

1) What first come to mind as the reason for people to go into schools and start shooting people?

2) What can be done to prevent the same thing from happening in the future?.

PLEASE don´t read others answers. Its a little sociological experiment (Out of interest. Not part of any of my Uni work) and afaiac there is no right or wrong answers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not having read anyone elses answers, here are mine:

1) When I read such things I think many things because I am personally one who doesnt like to jump to conclusions. I start to think from mental problems, to depression, to being bullied and wanting to take revenge, emotional instability. How many time when you were in school you thought "I hate this class/teacher/school I wish I could blow it all up and not have to come back"? When we are young, it is much harder for us to control emotions. To sum it up, sadness and insecurity.

2) What can be done? Well, how about everyone trying to be more understanding towards eachother? If we can manage to relieve one anothers hate and frustrations, people shouldnt normally be able to go all the way through with such atrocities. If he had had someone to talk to, to vent towards, to relieve himself with, he wouldnt have done such things.

The fact that he had legal access to guns is not a factor in this and others should not be blamed for having them. It is EXTREMELY hard to get a hold of any type of gun in Europe (as far as I know) and automatics are plain out banned, no exceptions made. That aspect is pretty well covered.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #13 of 63
<strong>Originally posted by Anders:
1) What first come to mind as the reason for people to go into schools and start shooting people?

2) What can be done to prevent the same thing from happening in the future?.
</strong>

BRussell had it right in the other thread:

1. Disgrunted and depressed person, without enough imagination to invent his own method of suicide, decides on a murdering spree at school. Ie, a social contagion caused by a dynamic mixing of sensationalistic media coverage and the unfathomability of the crime.

2. Nothing. Let the social contagion run its course. Wait for the next imaginative person to invent a different way of offing themselves or trying to get attention.

2a. See the movie, <a href="http://www.minorityreport.com/" target="_blank">Minority Report</a>, for ideas?

[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #14 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>BRussell had it right in the other thread:

1. Disgrunted and depressed person, without enough imagination to invent his own method of suicide, decides on a murdering spree at school. Ie, a social contagion caused by a dynamic mixing of sensationalistic media coverage and the unfathomability of the crime.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Wow, did I say that?
post #15 of 63
<strong>Originally posted by BRussell:
Wow, did I say that? </strong>

I was confused. It was this thread.

Btw, weren't we supposed to correct Anders' English?
post #16 of 63
powerdoc:
Outright prohibition of weapons seems to the be "control" method of choice for the EU/UN and the goal of most anti-gun folks.

We have plenty of regulations here in the U.S., and in the states where it's allowed you have to be licensed to carry a gun.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #17 of 63
Do we protect against the few by taking away the rights of the many?

I say "no", I guess you say "yes". You may not want a gun so you see no problem with removing them all. But what of the people who do want them?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Im not sure I ever really understood the whole right to bear arms thing; sorry. But....what kind of society grants people the right to buy full on miitary hardware? If its for hunting just what on earth is roaming around out there? Self defence? How dead do you want that mugger to be? It can' take an assault rifle surely? The urge to own guns is based more on emotion than reason. I suspect that statistically you are safer not having one. Does anyone know how many people have been disarmed and attacked, or have accidentally killed innocent people or had their weapons lost/stolen or used by someone else?
post #18 of 63
If you believe all the research on this, it appears that crime can be reduced in communities that pass laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons (see Lott: "More guns, less crimes").

On the other hand, people like Kellerman have shown that you're much more likely to kill yourself or one of your family if you keep a gun, than to kill an intruder.

Something like 40,000 people are killed from guns each year in the US, and at most a couple dozen of those are intruders shot to death by someone defending themselves or their homes. It just doesn't happen very often.

The gun groups say that if you were to look at defensive gun use that doesn't result in death (like pulling out your gun and the criminal runs away without being shot), then you'll see the benefit.

But I don't believe anyone has demonstrated a personal crime reduction for people with guns, i.e., a reduction in the likelihood of being victimized yourself. And I think it's very clear that the risk of death to you or your family increases when you keep a gun in the home.

So looking at the research on this, it seems that the best course of action is to live in a community where everyone carries guns but you.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
post #19 of 63
[quote]So looking at the research on this, it seems that the best course of action is to live in a community where everyone carries guns but you.<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

I wonder what the home accident statistics are for families where everyone is well-educated about guns and gun safety.

When kids shoot themselves at home 99.999% of the time it's a stupid father that got a handgun because of his small penis and he doesn't secure it properly or make his family take gun safety courses and actually interact with the gun so they know what to do if something happens.

Fear is the most dangerous thing. A friend of mine recently bought a pistol and my girlfriend wouldn't even touch it because she thought it might go off or something, even after being told that the handle safety had to be squeezed in, that the main safety was on and that there were no live rounds in the apartment, nevertheless the gun.
Education is the key, as it usually is in most social issues. I learned to respect the power of a gun early on in life, I went out to my grandparent's piece of land out in East Texas and blew a watermelon to bits with a shotgun and damn near dislocated my shoulder in the process.

In the hands of the psychotic, the ignorant and the scared, guns are bad. In the hands of the sane, the trained and confident, guns are good.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #20 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>powerdoc:
Outright prohibition of weapons seems to the be "control" method of choice for the EU/UN and the goal of most anti-gun folks.

We have plenty of regulations here in the U.S., and in the states where it's allowed you have to be licensed to carry a gun.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In France guns are not strictly prohibited, you can own some if :
- you have a secure chest : to put the gun in it
- you must belong to a shooting club, where you must be a regular follower
- you must clean (not crime recorded) and free of mental diseases.
- the guns cannot include war guns like the military ones , and of course no Kalachnikof , M16 or equivalent allowed.
- you must carry your guns between your home and the shooting club in separated wallet : one for the gun the other for the bullet , and the gun must have a system to make it no useable.

There is an another legislation for arms for hunting which is more simple : you must have an hunting license.

What do you need to have a license in US and in particular in texas (i said Texas, but you are a texan, and you are not supposed to know all the differents laws of all the differents states)
post #21 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Zarathustra:
<strong>Do we protect against the few by taking away the rights of the many?

I say "no", I guess you say "yes". You may not want a gun so you see no problem with removing them all. But what of the people who do want them?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Im not sure I ever really understood the whole right to bear arms thing; sorry. But....what kind of society grants people the right to buy full on miitary hardware? If its for hunting just what on earth is roaming around out there? Self defence? How dead do you want that mugger to be? It can' take an assault rifle surely? The urge to own guns is based more on emotion than reason. I suspect that statistically you are safer not having one. Does anyone know how many people have been disarmed and attacked, or have accidentally killed innocent people or had their weapons lost/stolen or used by someone else?[/QB]

Let me shed some light on this "right to keep and bare arms" issue. This was initiated by our forefathers as a way to guard the private citizens of America against possible tyrannical action by our government (part of the reason our great forefathers left England to begin with)ie: search and seizure of homes without provocation or warrent. This right was granted soley to keep the colonies protected by having the right to form malitia and protect their township. As for having the right to buy military type weapons, you are grossley mistaken. I at one time had a class3 Federal Firearms License and I can assure you no individual could buy (legally) automatic weapons. The ignorance of the general public on the aspects of guns and their mechanics is to blame for a lot of misconceptions. Example, the guns you buy at Walmart are no more asault weapon grade than an Uzi or an AK47. The cosmetic difference is what is intimidating here, but they are essentially the same type of weapon. Fully automin weapons require a class1 permit and a $3,000.00 excise tax stamp granted by the ATF. These are not easily obtained either. Again, the cosmetic difference is what captivates the news media and this in turn outrages the public, due to the lack of education of guns. This is an old saying but is still very true, guns do not kill people, people kill people, and they will continue to do so with whatever means are at hand. Fear the government that fears your gun is a very accurate statement as well. Look at what has taken place in England and Australia in the last 20 years, complete disarming of private citizens. Why? Neither country has had a civil uprising against their governments so why disarm?
The topic at hand with school shootings is what can be done? What can a society do to keep any mentally unstable person from killing dozens of people at a time? What if a rash of suicide car killings took place where some crazy person drove his/her car into a large crowd of people? Do we ban cars now? The same goes for knife use, arson,
archery or crossbows..where does it end? We need more education in the U.S about guns, gun ownership and the proper use and storage of guns. Education is the key to ending ignorance.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #22 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
<strong>Let me shed some light on this "right to keep and bare arms" issue. This was initiated by our forefathers as a way to guard the private citizens of America against possible tyrannical action by our government (part of the reason our great forefathers left England to begin with)ie: search and seizure of homes without provocation or warrent. This right was granted soley to keep the colonies protected by having the right to form malitia and protect their township.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable. What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.

But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.

Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law.
post #23 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable. What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.

But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.

Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well why then are there groups in Washington lobbying so hard to remove this right of gun ownership if this amendmant has no merit as you say? If the "right to keep and bare arms" is no more than a catch phrase and has no merit, then why has the federal government not followed suit with England and Australia in the removal of guns from homes? Mind you, these guns were removed house by house and in our modern time. I think there is more weight to this amendment than you think or the above would have taken place here after the Columbine incident, actually more closely to the Randy Weaver case and Waco as well.No, I beleive there is more to removing our guns than the population beleives. As I stated in my previous post what will be next to be banned? Knives, rope, bows and arrows, how far do we go to the extreme before we find ourselves at the mercy of outlaws with guns. Yes, the corrupt individual will always have a gun at their disposal and we can sit in fear of this kind of vermin as we become an unarmed nation. I beleive in the integrity of what our forefathers wrote and stood for. Now we are reduced to saying that certain amendments have no real merit. When will the freedom of speech be taken away?
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #24 of 63
[quote]What do you need to have a license in US and in particular in texas (i said Texas, but you are a texan, and you are not supposed to know all the differents laws of all the differents states)<hr></blockquote>

I can see how this is a foreign concept...

In our constitution, the federal government (theoretically) only has the powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. It is up to states individually to determine everything else. The U.S. Constitution, in this instance, only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

All U.S. states have some degree of self-determination, I do not think France has this kind of setup.

Example:

Arizona has open-carry laws. Which means you can walk around with a pistol on your side in plain sight, in a holster. You have to get licensed for this and it is a long and drawn-out process to get licensed. But in Arizona a citizen can walk around cowboy-style.

Texas has concealed-carry laws. Which means you can walk around with a pistol hidden on your person. You have to get licensed for this, same hassles and you can get arrested for exposing your gun unnecessarily.

---

[quote]The ignorance of the general public on the aspects of guns and their mechanics is to blame for a lot of misconceptions.<hr></blockquote>

DING DING DING DING DING!!!
We have a winnah!

---

[quote]Yes, but I think the extent to which they're referring to individuals' ability to fight the gov't is debatable.<hr></blockquote>

Read the Declaration of Independence, fool. While not a document with governmental authority, it certainly speaks volumes about the intentions of the framers.

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[quote]What is clear is that they didn't like the idea of a strong, independent Federal military - they wanted the military to be composed of individual state armies, with citizens from those states supplying their own arms.<hr></blockquote>

I don't know about this, I'm not disagreeing with you, I just haven't read about this. Got some examples of writings or something?

[quote]But what do we have now? A really strong federal military, and a very small role for state armies (like the national guards). I don't think too many people would argue against this, because of all the smart bombs and nukes that obviously you aren't gonna keep back in the wood shed with your musket.<hr></blockquote>

State armies, while not involved in overseas conflict, still have an active, albeit unglamorous, role in life.

And a well-armed populace has a lot of potential for insurrection and home defense should a foreign invader get past our big giant military.

[quote]Let's face it, there just aren't any state militias today like there used to be. This fact makes the Second Amendment barely relevant today, IMO. Which is probably why it has virtually no impact in modern case law<hr></blockquote>

That's frightening that you think the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant.

But it is open to interpretation, I suppose:
"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."

I think the key word that unlocks the interpretation of this is the inclusion of "the people".

If it were merely about state militias/armies being allowed to operate there would be no use for "the people". Just because we don't have minutemen anymore doesn't mean that an armed populace serves no purpose.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #25 of 63
What a lot of people fail to understand is that most of the gun-involved crimes are made with illegal weapons. That is, they weren't bought at a store, under the observation of licensing and regulation.

Personally, I don't own any guns, but I have a feeling that will change. I like guns. I don't really use them much, but I like to look at them, take them apart, etc. I would definitely be upset if I didn't have access to them, all because some lawmakers think that they know all there is to know about society. Would I then buy guns illegally? Probably yes. I pay little respect myself to laws that disrespect me.

Lastly, Anders mentioned: "A couple of days ago we experienced a school shooting episode. Something that is very seldom here."
Really, school shootings aren't very common here either. Columbine was an oddity. The violence in our inner city schools isn't so much an aspect of the system, but of the crime that exists more prevalently in inner cities, which pervades everything in the inner city. If that violence is to be checked, then there's a lot of work to be done, and personally I don't think it's worth it. That is, conventional efforts wouldn't work too well.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #26 of 63
Just some facts about the shooting in Germany:

- The killer was member in two shooting clubs. He had a licence and was a legal owner of his guns.
- Shortly after the shooting the media concenctrated on the pumpgun he was wearing. But he didn't use it - he just carried it with him while using handguns.
- The next morning the initial reaction of the conservative's candidate for the election in September said something like: we need more intolerance towards the makers and distributors of "killer games". It could happen that Counter-Strike is banned in Germany.

No fun in being a game developer these days ...
this space for rent
Reply
this space for rent
Reply
post #27 of 63
Ban the video games!

Europe is behind the curve on this one.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #28 of 63
reading should be for the cultured only, the nobolity has been getting short shrifted these many years and I think these shootings are startint to show the truth: its all writing's fault

uhh and what was the other question?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #29 of 63


I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #30 of 63
imho

-banning arms is not gonna change anything.

1) it's in our genes (from the waybacktimes)
2) if someone wants a gun - he will get one.

-banning games is not gonna change anything.

1) games are just another media. (ban tv, books, speech?)
2) most people use games to get rid of agression

we have to change our agressive envirement.
and if we want to change that - we have to change everything.

i think we are stuck with this problem.

but if everybody does good things in his small world - then we could make a change.
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #31 of 63
As we move into a nightamre Kafkaesque world how can it be surprising that people go on the rampage? here's an idea. Would incidents like this occur if:

Bullying was wiped out
Employers treated their employees with respect
People were looked after
Politicians listened to people
People who worked an honest days work got a decent wage out of it
Companies were not allowed to exploit people via their children through advertising
Society existed for its members and not for its rulers/controllers

. . .
Greatly Insane
Reply
Greatly Insane
Reply
post #32 of 63
That sounds almost like Holland!

For those that say that taking away a right to bear arms would not change anything vis-a-vis school shootings and the like, I would beg to differ...

1) Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".

2) I have no doubt that many pro-gun writers to this forum are oer would be responsible gun owners. But loose gun laws allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get guns. That is the issue. Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.

3) Specifically WRT to kids, the degree to which guns enable the act of killing is significant. Few kids could kill many people with a knife--it's actually pretty hard to kill someone with a knife, let alone many people. But a three year old can pop a cap in yer ass. So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.

4) Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.

5) Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.

6) here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #33 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by wormboy:
<strong>That sounds almost like Holland!

For those that say that taking away a right to bear arms would not change anything vis-a-vis school shootings and the like, I would beg to differ...

1) Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".

2) I have no doubt that many pro-gun writers to this forum are oer would be responsible gun owners. But loose gun laws allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get guns. That is the issue. Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.

3) Specifically WRT to kids, the degree to which guns enable the act of killing is significant. Few kids could kill many people with a knife--it's actually pretty hard to kill someone with a knife, let alone many people. But a three year old can pop a cap in yer ass. So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.

4) Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.

5) Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.

6) here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Totaly against gun control and definetly for capital punishment. Why? Should the tax payers of any given state be burdened with supporting murderers in prison for life? Most inmates have better provisions given them than law abiding citizens do. Example, three hots and a bed every day guarenteed, homeless people have no such luxury. Totally paid for health care and dental care..I have to pay deductions out the ass for my plan at work. The chance to earn a damn college diploma, let's see I thought they were in prison for a crime. The liberal whiny asses that always protest here in Florida at an excecution have never had a family member die at the hands of a cold blooded killer. Where does all the concern for the DEAD VICTIM go? Out the frickin door because he/she is no longer here to speak for them selves. So we get these whiners that say the electric chair here in Florida is cruel. So f@#kin what!! What about the cruel torture/death of the murder victims? Just forget it because they are already dead? I was here in Florida when the state finally fried Ted bundy. he cost the tax payers over 15 MILLION dollars in 11 years for his court appeals and stays of execution. Now what kind of financial help did the victims families get? Not a red fu#kin cent!! So yes I am strongly for capital punishment and as far as guns are concerned..fear the government that fears your gun.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #34 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

Well actually I shouldn´t be making jokes about it because the situation is seriously. A couple of days ago we experienced a school shooting episode. Something that is very seldom here. What interested me was how people reacted to it and how it differed from the reactions in US when the same thing happenes.

So please answer the following:

1) What first come to mind as the reason for people to go into schools and start shooting people?

2) What can be done to prevent the same thing from happening in the future?.

</strong><hr></blockquote>


1) Don't know.

2a) Ban guns. But wouldn't bad people smuggle them in? So this won't work. And even if bad people couldn't get guns, they would still find ways to kill (and rob and rape, etc).

2b) Identify the root cause of violence and then come up with a fix. It would mean we would have to figure out the right way to raise ALL people so that they have a respect for the lives and well being of others. Of course, if we did this, not only would we end gun shootings but we would end rapes, muggings, murder by knives etc., robberies, etc. And, since it would be a much safer place to live, gun sales would drop dramatically because the need for self protection would be almost vanished.
post #35 of 63
artman:

What are you rolling your eyes at with that picture?

--

[quote]Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".<hr></blockquote>

School shootings aren't common in the United States, I don't know where you get the idea that kids haul off and kill 30+ other kids every other week in America.

As far as I'm concerned it's not really a problem farther than a rare occurance blown out of proportion by the media.

[quote]Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.<hr></blockquote>

That's a generalization you aren't qualified to make. How many American gun owners do you run across in Amsterdam?

[quote]So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.<hr></blockquote>

They are rare as it is. Saving &lt;5 (this is a rough guesstimate #) school shooting deaths per year is not worth taking away a constitutionally protected right.

Thousands upon thousands of teenagers per year are killed by cars. It is the #1 cause of death among teenagers. Yet little is done about this; point being that it is not worth it in the scheme of things.

[quote]Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.<hr></blockquote>

They count, yes, but their guns are generally illegal (i.e. - smuggled in and unregistered). That's why they don't count when talking about the validity of removing guns as a crime deterrant since they prove that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.

[quote]Although you may think that many people would buy guns illegally under strict gun control (and I guess that many would initially), the fact is that eventually it would be a) hard to find a gun seller and b) hard to conceal the possession after the fact. Eventually guns in the US would be quite rare.<hr></blockquote>

- Handguns are quite easy to hide.

But yes, it would be more difficult to get them, but the only people who had them would be baddies assured of an unarmed populace of suckers to prey on.

And there's that whole pesky "constitutionally-protected right" issue... but that's trivial it seems.

[quote]here is a straw poll: How many of you that are against gun control are in favour of capital punishment?<hr></blockquote>

Against further gun control measures for the sake of being a gun control measure. In favor of a capital punishment system that needs radical modification (it's racist, after all).

----------

Robertp:

I'm a fellow pro-gun pro-death guy, but...

[quote]Should the tax payers of any given state be burdened with supporting murderers in prison for life?<hr></blockquote>

It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.

[quote]Most inmates have better provisions given them than law abiding citizens do.<hr></blockquote>

This is a load of shit. A big fat steaming pile of shit.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #36 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>artman:

What are you rolling your eyes at with that picture?

--



This is a load of shit. A big fat steaming pile of shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Prove me wrong. How can you say it is a load of shit when it is the truth. Why can a criminal go into prison a criminal and come out with a free degree? That is no load of shit, and where did you dream up it cost more to execute than house? I respect your opinion but back up this statemant with fact as I have in the case of ted bundy. How in the hell can you say it would have cost more than 15 mill to fry his ass when he should haved been instead of all the appeals he was granted? Flroida for one state has more remedial inmate programs at the tax payers cost than most states. If you do not mind footing their bills so be it, but I speak as a majority here in Florida are tired of prison perks.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #37 of 63
Groverat said:
[quote] School shootings aren't common in the United States, I don't know where you get the idea that kids haul off and kill 30+ other kids every other week in America.<hr></blockquote>

I wasn't specifically referring to school shootings; I know that they are rare events. Rather, I was referring to gun-related crimes in general, and here the US demonstrates particularly fine distinction. Is this a given, or do you insist that I have to go look up the statistics?

I said:

[quote]Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.<hr></blockquote>


Groverat said:
[quote]That's a generalization you aren't qualified to make. How many American gun owners do you run across in Amsterdam?
<hr></blockquote>

Actually, that's a statement you are not qualified to make. In fact, I am quite familiar with American gun culture. I spent most of my life in or near America. It just so happens that right now (for 5 years), I live in Europe. In fact, living in Europe gives me the authority to compare and contrast the two systems.

I said:
[quote]
So I'm pretty sure that in the absence of a gun the frequency of school killings may not drop, but the severity of those incidents would be more reasonable.
<hr></blockquote>

Groverat said:
[quote]They are rare as it is. Saving &lt;5 (this is a rough guesstimate #) school shooting deaths per year is not worth taking away a constitutionally protected right.
<hr></blockquote>

The fact that something is "constitutionally protected" does not make it sacrosanct. More aged cultures understand this. Royal decrees and laws made hundreds of years ago are silly by today's standards and simply don't apply. These kinds of laws are being taken off the books all the time. Even the US undergoes reform upon enlightenment, which is what many of the constitutional amendments are all about. The right to bear arms in the US was intended, as has been highlighted earlier in this thread, to protect the people from a corrupt or abusive government. Such words sound so hollow today for several reasons. First, your handguns will not protect you from Dubya (which was their purpose) if he blows a gasket; any insurrection based upon the kinds of guns you can legally owen would be a joke indeed. Second, who's to decide what is corrupt? All those presidential assassins through the years, I guess? Third, the media complex is so involved in making of a culture these days, that if the government, should it choose to be abusive, could do so in a way that would make it impossible to form an organised revolt. They would simply insinuate themselves in the media and control your perceptions; that was not possible in 1776, when people actually had to think for themselves during the daily discourse.

I, and others, find the right to bear arms a once necessary, but today offensive, right. I think the constitution needs to be ameneded again. To further the point, the right to bear arms is not a fundamental human right, is it? It's only "constitutional" within the US (amoung G7esque nations), right? Why do you still think you need it when everyone else does not? The constitutionality of something like the right to bear arms is trotted out by those who want to own a gun. Period. It plays well in that it exploits the strong patriotic streak in Americans. The vast majority of these people have given no thought to using it to protect themselves against the government (except for a five minute daydream involving Schwarzeneager-like oneliners.). So why the self delusion? If evil tyrannical government is the sole constitutional justification of handguns, and it is irrelevant in todays world, can't that ammendment be challenged?

Groverat said:
[quote]
Thousands upon thousands of teenagers per year are killed by cars. It is the #1 cause of death among teenagers. Yet little is done about this; point being that it is not worth it in the scheme of things.
<hr></blockquote>

Car accidents are not germane to this thread.


I said:
[quote]
Many of us also have argued (if not here then in other similar conversations elsewhere) that most gun related killings are drug-related, or involve poor people. What... these people don't count? Of course they do.

<hr></blockquote>

Groverat said:
[quote]
They count, yes, but their guns are generally illegal (i.e. - smuggled in and unregistered). That's why they don't count when talking about the validity of removing guns as a crime deterrant since they prove that making something illegal doesn't make it go away.
<hr></blockquote>
Poor people can't own legal guns? Also, recall my point about availability. Let me tell you, it's nearly impossible for a person to find a gun here. I'm sure you &lt;b&gt;can't&lt;/b&gt; get them, but it's not easy. Restricting gun access for the general population would indeed result in fewer illegal guns, both amoung the general population and that subset called criminals. In fact, I bet &lt;b&gt;most&lt;/b&gt; criminals here in Holland don't own a gun.

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #38 of 63
d/p

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: The Installer ]</p>
MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) / 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5 / 8GB RAM / 500GB SSD
Reply
MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) / 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5 / 8GB RAM / 500GB SSD
Reply
post #39 of 63


<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) / 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5 / 8GB RAM / 500GB SSD
Reply
MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2013) / 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5 / 8GB RAM / 500GB SSD
Reply
post #40 of 63
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wormboy:
[QB]Groverat said:

Poor people can't own legal guns? Also, recall my point about availability. Let me tell you, it's nearly impossible for a person to find a gun here. I'm sure you &lt;b&gt;can't&lt;/b&gt; get them, but it's not easy. Restricting gun access for the general population would indeed result in fewer illegal guns, both amoung the general population and that subset called criminals. In fact, I bet &lt;b&gt;most&lt;/b&gt; criminals here in Holland don't own a gun.

Ah the nievity of Europe...has history not taught anyone a lesson? The domination by Germany and their trouncing all over Europe and taking , killing who or whatever they pleased. Moving forward to Tennamen Sqare, no right to assemble and protest without fear of being shot or run over by tanks. Funny how these EUROPEAN events have not taken place here in AMERICA. Outside of our own internal scirmish, when have we be fired upon by our military in a protest? OK I will concede to the events of Kent State during the turmoil in the 60's but other than that what? People so quickly forget that our great forefathers of this nation gambled everything they had on the prospect of surviving when they chose to come to AMERICA. This country was the disdane of mother England..we were bullied, blockaded, raided, and yet our spirit and our guns set us free once and for all. AND our founding fathers had the foresight to realise that what happened to them in England could happen here if our government got to powerfull. Thus the provision of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.Why is the world so resentful of our gun ownership? Could it be because at one time other countries had this right only to have it abolished by their government? As you state in your posts I get the perception that you believe if guns were not allowed to be owned crime would not exist? You state yourself that in Holland CRIMINALS do not have guns. If Holland has no guns why do you have criminals?
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › School shootings. Europe vs. US.