Another school shooting in the US
- Thread starter .Griff.
- Start date
And illegal guns magically disappear at the same time I suppose?
You would leave schools undefended because they are in nice areas then, that's a vote for the status quo it seems.
but apparently substantiated in the post above?
Again, that's your spin, not mine
It bothered him enough to wear body armour though.
What did illegal guns have to do with this shooting? AFAIK they were legally owned by his mother...
Illegal guns are available in this country, and are occasionally used by gang members here - we don't tend to have school shootings of this nature.
erm you said
I'm just mocking it... as its frankly ridiculous - you're just repeating that same flawed argument that has been used by the gun lobby in the USA for years...
a ban doesn't necessarily affect the use of unlicensed weapons... there were illegally owned unlicensed handguns being used by gang members prior to the handgun ban and there still are since it...
the Dunblane shooting that prompted the ban was conducted by an individual gun nut with legally obtained weapons, the Virginia tech shooting was conducted using legally obtained weapons, the Cinema shooting in Colorado and this recent shooting have involved weapons that were purchased legally
None of those increased handgun deaths in the UK since the ban have been a result of school massacres, rather they're completely unrelated - they're mostly gang/drug related shootings....
You suggested banning handguns - which does nothing about the illegal handguns or really much about guns not on a state register.
Doesn't that suggest that this is a social issue and not one of gun ownership (legal or otherwise).
maybe stop putting words in my mouth then
Shock horror, a debating point is disputed. Please assume I mock yours too, I can't be bothered to say as much.
Where were we?
OK, ban guns for civilians,
leave guns in hands of criminals,
???
profit
Or alternatively keep on with the naive belief that the prevalence/easy availability of guns in society will somehow reduce gun violence or act as a deterrent...
Or take it to the laughably ridiculous suggestion that a cook, janitor could be allowed to carry a firearm in school on the off chance...
Last edited:
You genuinely think if access to firearms were heavily restricted from the civilian population it would make no difference to the number of gun related deaths?
Logic dictates if there are fewer guns there are fewer deaths. Americans can't see it because they are all uppity about their constituition, but that is what has to happen.
Can you imagine the parents who bough christmas presents already? Imagining what fun the child will have playing with it when they were buying it. Putting it under the tree. Then this thing happened and you go home to look at that christmas present. What do they even do with it? You probably put it away in a cupboard for decades still wrapped up. Every so often you go to the cupboard and pick it up and look at it and think about your kid who will never get to open it. It's incomprehensibly tragic.
What can be done when the second amendment in the US is the right to have a gun?...not trolling genuine question, it looked like Obama wanted there and then do say no more guns...but what realistic choices does he have?...when the Sheiff ( I think) was speaking that some of them where identified by their cloths, that tells me he went about that class rom of kids picking them off, that destroyed me and had to change the channel.
The United States government has countlessly violated their own constitution and Bill of Rights. As George W Bush said, it's just goddamned piece of paper.
Caporegime
Malcolm Turnbull (Cabinet Minister in Australia's conservative Liberal Party) had some pithy words for Rupert Murdoch today:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
No it doesn't. It says they have the right to "bear arms", no where is the word 'gun' or 'firearm' mentioned.
So it's purely down to interpretation. They already can't own rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, tanks etc so why not move that line further so that a hunting rifle/shotgun is the limit (whilst removing hand guns and semi automatic weapons)?
If Americans could currently literally own any weapons they wanted (and there are unbelievably some people on the far right that do think they should be able to own anything) then I'd take the literal reading on the second amendment more seriously.
And lest we forget, it was the second AMENDMENT. Amendment means "we had a second think about this and decided to change it" so there is no reason they can't do it again. They're on the 27th amendment at the moment, which was passed in 1996 so it's a myth that they can't change their constitution. They banned alcohol with the 18th amendment and then repealed that ban with the 21st, so why can't they allow powerful weapons under the 2nd amendment but ban them under the 28th?
Last edited:
Non American: "you understand that most US gun deaths are caused by an average member of the general public getting emotional and expressing that emotion with a weapon?"
American: "ridiculous! if everyone had a gun we would be safe!"
Non American: "if everyone had a gun you would have even more emotional people killing their cheating spouse, noisy neighbour or annoying workmate"
American: "we neeed to defend ourselves from the enemy!"
Non American: "but you are your own enemy, every single one of you average Americans"
American: "they can take this gun from my cold dead hands! (Mr Heston)"
Quite honestly I don't care any more, neither should any of you, switch the TV channel and shrug your shoulders at yet another mass US shooting.
American: "ridiculous! if everyone had a gun we would be safe!"
Non American: "if everyone had a gun you would have even more emotional people killing their cheating spouse, noisy neighbour or annoying workmate"
American: "we neeed to defend ourselves from the enemy!"
Non American: "but you are your own enemy, every single one of you average Americans"
American: "they can take this gun from my cold dead hands! (Mr Heston)"
Quite honestly I don't care any more, neither should any of you, switch the TV channel and shrug your shoulders at yet another mass US shooting.
Man of Honour
What a weird/strange/****** up World we live in when an incident like this happens that often that it doesn't bother me any longer. 
Soldato
Whats even more hypocritical is they get drones to fire on people who are armed in other countries because they think they must have them solely to cause terror and kill innocents.
Not many gun owners are shot though are they? That sounds like a deterrent to me. Say you were a criminal, would you dare break into a house in Texas? 50:50 that you are on a slab within the hour.
Violence is often random, so if the law and the police are not deterrents, at least you have a chance at not being a victim yourself.
What is naive is expecting 300,000,000 guns to be handed over for destruction when only 0.000003% of them are used for violence and a minuscule fraction of that used to kill like this guy. You'd make a better case for car deaths or dodgy plastic toys from china or falling out of bed or opening a tin of spam. Not to mention the fallout on the hunting community, farmers pest control and whatever else people use guns for.
All the while actual criminals are having a field day because now they can break into a house in Texas and do what they want.
You should stop watching so many naff action films
"1997
Luke Woodham slit’s his mother’s throat and entered Pearl High School in Mississippi with a rifle. 3 dead and 7 injured total. As he fled the scene he was confronted by vice principal Joel Myrick who had retrieved a handgun from his trunk, and was roaming the school looking for the killer. Myrick apprehended Luke without firing and held him until authorities arrived. Investigators later learned that Luke intended to go to Pearl Middle School next"
You seem to like mocking people's points - but I'd just point out that doesn't make your point any better, or anyone else's point worse, just that you want to crowd source some derision (like the tedious dummies in here who post up hilarious Herp Derp pictures instead of bothering to make a point).
I'd have more faith in a random civilian being in the right place at the right time than your security guard idea - did you know Columbine had a security guard? The hero stood outside waiting for the police to arrive, whereupon they all stood outside waiting while the shooting continued.
Last edited:
No, but they don't find their way into the hands of the mentally ill, who normally don't have the connections to organised crime that you need to buy an illegal weapon. The three shooting sprees in this country in the past 25 years were committed using legal firearms and could have been avoided by stricter controls on licensing.
History derail - the first ten amendments were only added later because their inclusion in the Constitution wasn't agreed upon in time for its signing (anti-Federalists wanted each state to have its own Bill of Rights). The second amendment was always going to be written into law in some form or another.
In America if you are admitted for mental problems they automatically take all your guns off you.
(open to correction on the details, but that is the gist of it)
Likewise if you have any sort of criminal record, I reckon more could be done to identify ill people although this creates a bit of a nanny state.
There doesn't appear to be any requirement for firearms training which is bad IMO and I think private sales of guns should be regulated more, or at least tracked.
What a weird/strange/****** up World we live in when an incident like this happens that often that it doesn't bother me any longer.
The interesting thing is however that incidents like this are actually surprisingly rare!
Consider this;
1) The USA has a population of several hundred million.
2) Most US citizens will have access to legitimate firearms (ALL will have relatively easy access to illegal ones)
3) In any given population, 10% probably have psychiatric issues to a greater or lesser extent (Maybe more) And the US has notoriously poor mental heath services unless one is rich enough for private treatment.
And yet, if something like this happens twice within a 12 month period it is considered an exceptionally bad year!
While it is easier to cause multiple deaths/serious injury with firearms than by other means. Banning firearms will not stop Nutters running amok like this. Attacks on School children like this in the UK for instance didn't stop after Dunblane. The assailants simply switched to using different weapons such as Machetes.
Similar attacks using edged weapons are becoming quite common in China too!
The issue runs deeper than Gun control and while restricting gun ownership might remove one of the "Tools" it will not remove the problem!