Active shooter in Texas high school

[ShadowMan]

There are also considerably more suicides in the UK than homicides by gun (5668 suicides in 2016 vs 26 firearms homicides). I do not get why you think reviewing the system is not worth doing?

You now argue that there is a cost to this any users should pay? Why shouldn't they? I pay insurance to use my car. Americans do the same. That is a cost of using a licensed system.

You arguments are thin and you are resorting to sarcasm about cancer and heart disease as you know there is no argument to keep the system as it is other than "I don't want to change it". No-one in the USA has suggested banning all guns. No-one has suggested removing the 2nd amendment and taking peoples gun. What people are asking for is gun-control. This is not a gun ban.

The UK introduced further legislation in 1997 and initially numbers of licensed weapons did fall as some were required to surrender non-conforming weapons. Since then however the number has steadily increased to where we are now. From the ONS:

The 153,404 firearm certificates as at 31 March 2016 covered 539,194 firearms, the highest since these figures were first collected in 1995. The number of weapons covered decreased after the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 came into effect, falling to 295,000 in 1998, before steadily increasing year on year.

There were 567,015 shotgun certificates as at 31 March 2016; There were 1,331,563 shotguns (covered by shotgun certificates) as at 31 March 2016.

Your entire post feels like an anti-establishment argument and you base everything on not wanting the government to interfere as you don't seem to see any advantage to trying to reduce the deaths of innocent people.

 

[Minusorange]

You arguments are thin and you are resorting to sarcasm about cancer and heart disease as you know there is no argument to keep the system as it is other than "I don't want to change it". No-one in the USA has suggested banning all guns. No-one has suggested removing the 2nd amendment and taking peoples gun. What people are asking for is gun-control. This is not a gun ban.

They have a right to own a gun (providing they're not criminals)

By bringing in stricter regulation that right vs the regulations WILL start to conflict with each other where it will no longer be a right to own a gun but a luxury

They are protecting the constitution because when one right is regulated then you can be damn sure other rights will get regulated too and as stupid as I think Americans are, I actually think they're intelligent to see this

What it boils down to is one side values freedom over safety while the other values safety over freedom

Neither is right and neither is wrong because it's just opinion

If you value safety because you're incapable of defending yourself and would rather rely on government/police/military to offer you that protection then so be it, but what happens when if they ever get tyrannical and decide to come after you or your friends

And don't say it's outrageous, it was only 70 years ago Nazi's were rounding up unarmed Jews and gassing them

I however would rather have the freedom to choose if I want government to protect me

 

[Mark A]

If you value safety because you're incapable of defending yourself and would rather rely on government/police/military to offer you that protection then so be it, but what happens when if they ever get tyrannical and decide to come after you or your friends

I'm sure a semi auto rifle will protect you from the US military.. Of all the excuses for wanting to keep your toys, this has to be the lamest.

 

[Minusorange]

I'm sure a semi auto rifle will protect you from the US military.. Of all the excuses for wanting to keep your toys, this has to be the lamest.

Really ? Look at Ukraine, civil war has been on going for over 5 years, that's a well equipped army vs townsfolk with Russian supplied weapons

Look at Syria another well equipped army against townsfolk and terrorists that has been on going for 10+ years and is only now seeing victory for the military after getting help from multiple nations

Look at Iraq and how the US struggled against the insurgents

Look at Afghanistan and how goat herders fought off the Russians

Look at Vietnam and how rice farmers beat the US

Cuba and their revolution

The Spanish civil war

Incredibly ignorant to assume military might is an automatic win when history has shown us multiple times it is not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars

That's a lot of civil wars just in the last 100 years

If you can be sure of one thing, history repeats

 

[adolf hamster]

They have a right to own a gun (providing they're not criminals)

By bringing in stricter regulation that right vs the regulations WILL start to conflict with each other where it will no longer be a right to own a gun but a luxury

They are protecting the constitution because when one right is regulated then you can be damn sure other rights will get regulated too and as stupid as I think Americans are, I actually think they're intelligent to see this

except that's a steaming pile of horse manure, the 2nd amendment is not infallible as has already been proven in the american justice system, just look at the NFA and the restrictions on suppressors, short barreled rifles/shotguns, "destructive devices" and machine guns. so evidently there's zero legal issue with implementing gun control because it's already been done several times already.

also the argument of a slippery slope is bs too, because the moment gun control succeeds in drastically reducing events like this then the public will to do anything about guns dissappears. you don't hear calls for gun control in europe because, you guessed it, we don't have regular mass shootings and as such people have no drive to do anything more to regulate firearms.

 

[Minusorange]

we don't have regular mass shootings and as such people have no drive to do anything more to regulate firearms.

We never had this issue when we had lax gun controls though

If you're saying my points are BS yours are even bigger when you're claiming that laws put in place solved a problem that never even existed in the first place

It's only in the last 10/20 years that school shootings have been increasing in occurrence, prior to that there were some but not enough to raise concern, the laws have not changed from before the increase which suggests that the law is not the issue when it comes to kids shooting other kids but something else.

 

[adolf hamster]

We never had this issue when we had lax gun controls though

If you're saying my points are BS yours are even bigger when you're claiming that laws put in place solved a problem that never even existed in the first place

It's only in the last 10/20 years that school shootings have been increasing in occurrence, prior to that there were some but not enough to raise concern, the laws have not changed from before the increase which suggests that the law is not the issue when it comes to kids shooting other kids but something else.

wait, you're telling me the banning of pistols in the uk wasn't as a direct response to the dunblane massacre after which point we have (surprise surprise) not had another school massacre?

dunblane- 17 people killed, firearms laws changed

america- 6 seperate shootings of 17 people or more since 1996, no firearms law change

 

[Minusorange]

wait, you're telling me the banning of pistols in the uk wasn't as a direct response to the dunblane massacre after which point we have (surprise surprise) not had another school massacre?

Tell me, how many school massacres did we have BEFORE Dunblane ?

 

[MissChief]

Tell me, how many school massacres did we have BEFORE Dunblane ?

Too many. Don't forget Hungerford too, although not a school shooting. And Raoul moat's killing of three people. And the Cumbria shootings too.

 

[Destination]

Because it's not the epidemic people would make it out to be
You have more chance of killing yourself than being shot with a gun in America, let that sink in
You also have more chance to be shot by a police officer than be involved in a mass shooting, almost twice as likely
Let's be honest all restrictions and tighter laws do is punish the innocent by making them either give up their once legal weapons or pay through the nose via all the red tape that comes with regulation, either way nobody wins because people will still get access to guns and will still want to kill
You end up with less freedom and faux security
And clearly we need to ban heart disease and cancer

Couple of diversions and straw men in there.
You are four times more likely to die as a result of a mass shooting, than be killed by a foreign born terrorist. Your figures.
Plenty is spent stopping the foreign born terrorists. Every US flight now has air marshals.
Many of the guns used in mass shootings are legal.
What is being suggested is adapting the laws to try to minimise this risk.

Either way I don't care anymore, polarised America isn't going to help itself, so I'll hit a LIKE somewhere and send THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS, as it'll probably do more than the US will manage on its own.

 

[bjorkiii]

Guns should only be available to armed forces , if u want to hunt animals use a bow and arrow or catapult. The earth is triangle , the internet is full of nutcases. I am fed up of internet forum professors knowing how to paste 99% of this and that and telling things as fact. The times they are a changing and not for the better, in Northern Khazakstan the elderberry is not known to leap into political debate with swans therefor 55% of swaddling pigeons never need to learn swahili in most cases. Waffles cause most cases of denghi fever so claimed Bob james internet proffessor Ba in heebigeebis and photosynthesis.

 

[adolf hamster]

Tell me, how many school massacres did we have BEFORE Dunblane ?

none, that's why we didn't ban handguns until it happened

 

[Minusorange]

And the Cumbria shootings too.

lol that was over 10 years after Dunblane when we supposedly had stricter laws to prevent that kind of thing from happening

none, that's why we didn't ban handguns until it happened

By that reasoning though if somebody got killed by a football (somehow) we should ban all footballs to prevent a potential epidemic of mass football massacres that may or may not happen

What is being suggested is adapting the laws to try to minimise this risk.

The risk is already fairly low already though, granted there is an increase in school shootings in the last 20 years however it's not due to the laws regarding guns because prior to this increase the laws were the same.

You start giving concessions here and there which on the surface are probably harmless but given time those little concessions mount and you end less free and more restricted

I get it you guys value safety more and that's fine, I value freedom and I'm not naive to think governments have our best interests at heart when it comes to our safety

 

[adolf hamster]

By that reasoning though if somebody got killed by a football (somehow) we should ban all footballs to prevent a potential epidemic of mass football massacres that may or may not happen

wow we're really dredging the bottom of the barrel here, is that really the best you can come up with?

 

[Minusorange]

wow we're really dredging the bottom of the barrel here, is that really the best you can come up with?

Not really, not when your argument is that laws were put in place to resolve an issue that didn't exist and was more knee jerk than rational thinking

ISIS are using vehicles to attack people so by that reasoning we should ban vehicles because 1 incident is sufficient to implement knee jerk laws

 

[MissChief]

It's precisely because of the very strict rules about gun ownership that such shootings over here are exceptionally rare.

 

[adolf hamster]

Not really, not when your argument is that laws were put in place to resolve an issue that didn't exist and was more knee jerk than rational thinking

ISIS are using vehicles to attack people so by that reasoning we should ban vehicles because 1 incident is sufficient to implement knee jerk laws

so your argument is that we shouldn't have knee jerk policy? because the number of school shootings after dunblane seems to suggest otherwise.....

it's a moot point anyway because any gun control implemented in america isn't exactly going to be knee jerk policy is it? because last time i checked it's not as if this isn't a recurring problem....

you speak of rational thinking, fair enough, what's your rational solution to the problem of regular mass shootings?

 

[enkoda]

They have a right to own a gun (providing they're not criminals)

By bringing in stricter regulation that right vs the regulations WILL start to conflict with each other where it will no longer be a right to own a gun but a luxury

They are protecting the constitution because when one right is regulated then you can be damn sure other rights will get regulated too and as stupid as I think Americans are, I actually think they're intelligent to see this

What it boils down to is one side values freedom over safety while the other values safety over freedom

Neither is right and neither is wrong because it's just opinion

If you value safety because you're incapable of defending yourself and would rather rely on government/police/military to offer you that protection then so be it, but what happens when if they ever get tyrannical and decide to come after you or your friends

And don't say it's outrageous, it was only 70 years ago Nazi's were rounding up unarmed Jews and gassing them

I however would rather have the freedom to choose if I want government to protect me

You made an important point right at the start of your post - if it is ok to stop convicted felons and people with mental disorders from owning guns, their right to bear arms has been taken away from them. So the whole notion of protecting rights and freedoms has fallen flat on its face.

If freedom is more important than safety why aren't these two groups given their rights back? If they kill innocent people, so what, rights are more important yeah?

 

[Minusorange]

You made an important point right at the start of your post - if it is ok to stop convicted felons and people with mental disorders from owning guns, their right to bear arms has been taken away from them. So the whole notion of protecting rights and freedoms has fallen flat on its face.

If freedom is more important than safety why aren't these two groups given their rights back? If they kill innocent people, so what, rights are more important yeah?

There are already checks in place to prevent people with mental illness and criminals from obtaining guns, why does there need to be more laws to do the same thing ? laws that will ultimately only hurt people already obeying the law ?

It's precisely because of the very strict rules about gun ownership that such shootings over here are exceptionally rare.

They were rare before we had those strict rules too mass shooting was never a problem in the UK whether we had strict gun laws or lax gun laws, you're stating a solution to a problem that never existed

you speak of rational thinking, fair enough, what's your rational solution to the problem of regular mass shootings?

Addressing the societal and cultural issues that are causing kids to turn psycho and murder their class mates, along with working towards improving support and the science behind mental health

The media coverage doesn't help either, it gives all the attention they crave, not to mention

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...-cruz-prison-love-letters-20180327-story.html just sums up it stems far more than just the killer

But the reality is society is rotten at its core, we pass laws for protection to make it seem like we're doing something but ultimately we're all either too ******* lazy or too stupid to see that society as a whole needs fixing and these murders are just the visible tip of the figurative ice berg

 

[adolf hamster]

There are already checks in place to prevent people with mental illness and criminals from obtaining guns, why does there need to be more laws to do the same thing ? laws that will ultimately only hurt people already obeying the law ?

well the laws america have in place don't seem to be all that effective at preventing nutcases shooting up schools , as for hurting people obeying the law seriously? what's wrong with a 6 month waiting period to get your shiny new gun, or registration (note not licencing, just to keep the tablets of moses second amendment intact), or applying the same extended background checks that are already in place for certain weapons to all weapons? no true gun enthusiast is going to be massively put out by that.

Addressing the societal and cultural issues that are causing kids to turn psycho and murder their class mates, along with working towards improving support and the science behind mental health

The media coverage doesn't help either, it gives all the attention they crave, not to mention

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...-cruz-prison-love-letters-20180327-story.html just sums up it stems far more than just the killer

But the reality is society is rotten at its core, we pass laws for protection to make it seem like we're doing something but ultimately we're all either too ******* lazy or too stupid to see that society as a whole needs fixing and these murders are just the visible tip of the figurative ice berg

[/quote]

so at least you understand there are 2 ingredients to a shooting, except you're proposing we throw massive amounts of resources at trying to find a way to prevent the human condition, when there are cheaper, easier, effective solutions available.

as much as the entire world would like to figure out how to stop schoolkids from being bullied into desperation, it's not going to be happening any time soon so the best you can hope for is to at least cut the casualty rate by limiting their choice of weaponry.

except apparently we all need to be toting ar15's if we're to be safe and free, well i dunno about you but i feel pretty goddam safe, and pretty goddam free, and i sure as hell don't think the government is going to turn into soviet russia any time soon. don't get me wrong guns are a fantastic hobby for a great many people, but don't try and bull*** us by saying civilians need guns for anything but a bit of varmint control, hunting and entertainment.