Another school shooting in the US

I wonder what they blamed the Bath School disaster (1927, 45 dead, bomb) and University of Texas Massacre (1966, 16 dead, shootings) on?

Games consoles weren't around then.
 
fozzybear said:
I wonder what they blamed the Bath School disaster (1927, 45 dead, bomb) and University of Texas Massacre (1966, 16 dead, shootings) on?

Games consoles weren't around then.
Click to expand...
Or say the past 10,000 years of barbaric war - women having no rights & people being murdered with impunity, with beheading, slavery, executions & torture on a mass scale.

People (idiots) like to blame anything new as being a cause of negative human behaviour which has been around as long as humans have, if anything our society is more civilised (the average person, not the actions of the state) now than it's ever been.
 
drunkenmaster said:
He CHOSE to KILL PEOPLE, he used a gun, the choice came first, the gun didn't make the choice for him, he wanted to kill people, he would have killed people. He may have been more successfull, he may have been less successful its almost certain he would have still tried because ignore the gun, HE WANTED TO KILL PEOPLE, the gun is completely irrelevant to that. Especially as the vast majority of people who do this want to die themselves and kill themselves in the process... IE he wanted to die, it wasn't like a professional hit where a gun from the longest distance possible and getting away without being caught was of concern.
Click to expand...

You have to ask the question though.

Had the guns not been readily available at his parents house, would he have carried through with it ?

How much harder would it have been had an AR-15 assault rifle not been lieing around at his house ?
 
drunkenmaster said:
Gang culture and gun crime NEEDS addressing, but it always did, and it has nothing to do with crazy people going on rampages. This is the problem, politicians are being given an easy way out, ban the M4 copy the kid used, everyones happy, nothing is done about ghetto's, nothing is done about gangs, the murder rate/gun crimes won't change much at all... psycho's will still go on rampages, using other guns, or other weapons entirely and nothing will change.

people need to focus on two separate issues, and not let politics package this up in a "we've identified some stupid reason this happened, will fix this little thing and pretend everythings better" bow and not go after the fundamental issues underneath.
Click to expand...

They aren't two separate issues.

America's obsession with guns is to blame for both.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
He CHOSE to KILL PEOPLE, he used a gun, the choice came first, the gun didn't make the choice for him
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Or like most things you say are you passing conjecture off as fact again?

You don't know for a fact he didn't look at that gun hanging on the wall and think "it would be cool to shoot people up with that", a thought he may not have had without the image? How do you KNOW he sat down and thought "right I want to kill a load of people, now let me spend some time deciding which weapon to use" and then just so happened to choose firearms?
 
drunkenmaster said:
lots of text.
Click to expand...

I can't quite see your point.

Whether a guy wants to go on a rampage or not, if he has a gun it's easier to do it. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to go on killing sprees in all countries, but they don't, and quite usually can't due to lack of killing devices (mainly guns). The bottom line is there is no need for any average joe member of the public to own a gun, anywhere.
 
hurfdurf said:
Gun control is mute, its too late for America, what they need is access to mental health care.
Click to expand...

Yes because a person who's taken crystal meth for the first time and is suffering paranoid delusions is really going to book himself into the emergency room whilst holding his gun calmly at his side.

Until guns are out of the hands of civilian population the threat will be ever present.
 
Captain Planet said:
There is no need for any average joe member of the public to own a gun, anywhere.
Click to expand...

RDM said:
Recreational target shooting?
Click to expand...

That's not a need, it's a want and recreational target shooting can be accomplished at a shooting range without owning a gun.

the only people who NEED weapons are those employed to use them.

And semi-automatic rifles? what a ridiculous piece of equipment for anyone to own.
 
2nd amendment doesn't say anything about target shooting or hunting.

It means you can have the same small arms as the government, but semi-automatic i.e. you can account for every bullet. There's no real use for a machine gun in self defense because there's no way to be accountable for every bullet. Although you can buy a machine gun if you jump through some hoops, but they are expensive collectors items.

I have a question for the gun ban people:

What exactly has changed since the holocaust or the holodomor, the killing fields, etc? What EXACTLY has changed so it can't ever happen again? Because it is still going on in Africa right now this minute.

"Well the government will come and save me".
What happens when it's the government who wants to kill you?

Just because you're white and middle class doesn't make you immune. It happened right on your door step in the Balkans. Look up the farm murders in SA. Look at the sudden rise of the Golden Dawn in Greece. It can happen.
 
kwerk said:
2nd amendment doesn't say anything about target shooting or hunting.

It means you can have the same small arms as the government, but semi-automatic i.e. you can account for every bullet. There's no real use for a machine gun in self defense because there's no way to be accountable for every bullet. Although you can buy a machine gun if you jump through some hoops, but they are expensive collectors items.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment doesn't state citizens can have the same small arms as the government either. It says....

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.
Click to expand...

So it's purely down to interpretation what that means. Now I would argue that the US Army is now their "well regulated militia" and that there is no longer a need under the 2nd amendment for [the vast majority of] private citizens to own firearms.
 
Last edited:
yer_averagejoe said:
That's not a need, it's a want and recreational target shooting can be accomplished at a shooting range without owning a gun.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to be pedantic about it then you need a gun if you want to go recreational target shooting.

Hatter The Mad said:
Go to a licensed gun range or place or whatever. Use theirs.
Click to expand...

Not really all that suitable a solution. For a start you have no just collected all weapons in one place making theft much easier. Also I would assume for anyone even half serious about shooting they would want their own weapon set up for themselves rather than using a club weapon that anyone can shoot.
 
It was ruled by the supreme court that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals.

Plus here is the original definition of the militia: "Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45".

Now if they actually enforced that part the shooting would have never happened because women aren't supposed to be allowed. The bulk of every day gun crime would be gone too because most of it is black-on-black. Then expand able-bodied to include able-minded to rule out the mentally ill and that would solve the bulk of the spree shooting problem.

ETA: that's if you're taking a strict view that the right to bear arms is purely about defense by the state militia against tyranny, and not general self-defense or recreation.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
The 2nd amendment doesn't state citizens can have the same small arms as the government either. It says....



So it's purely down to interpretation what that means. Now I would argue that the US Army is now their "well regulated militia" and that there is no longer a need under the 2nd amendment for [the vast majority of] private citizens to own firearms.
Click to expand...

Read the contemporary state constitutions which often go in to more detail: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Alaska: 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
Click to expand...
 
RDM said:
Not really all that suitable a solution. For a start you have no just collected all weapons in one place making theft much easier.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you assume that theft becomes easier. We keep all of the country's arms and gold in a few well secured, licensed and monitored places. That hasn't made theft easier. In fact, having fewer, licensed and monitored places inherently makes it easier to secure and regulate.


Also I would assume for anyone even half serious about shooting they would want their own weapon set up for themselves rather than using a club weapon that anyone can shoot.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they could own their own gun and keep it at the club?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom