School shootings. Europe vs. US.
[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.
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.
Comments
[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
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.
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
Thank you, and goodnight.
<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>
<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
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?
<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.
<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.
<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.
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>
<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?
Wow, did I say that?
I was confused. It was this thread.
Btw, weren't we supposed to correct Anders' English?
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.
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?
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]" />
<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.
<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)
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.