Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 131 to 139 of 139

Thread: School shootings false statistics

  1. #131

    Default

    Newsflash: the Netherlands ( known for Amsterdam, coffee shops and the red light district ) had a school shooting. A boy took a handgun, alarm pistol and two knives to school and started shooting at the ceiling.

    Nobody got hurt, the teachers talked him down and the police arrested him. The boy was a pupil at a school with troubled kids. The boy had an argument with another boy and thought the gun would make a compelling argument.

  2. #132

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Roland007 View Post
    Newsflash: the Netherlands ( known for Amsterdam, coffee shops and the red light district ) had a school shooting. A boy took a handgun, alarm pistol and two knives to school and started shooting at the ceiling.

    Nobody got hurt, the teachers talked him down and the police arrested him. The boy was a pupil at a school with troubled kids. The boy had an argument with another boy and thought the gun would make a compelling argument.
    Well, that ended up pretty great, sadly most of the time with any of these Mass Shootings in the US the shooter is set on committing the act and wants to kill people, probably because they figure whatever problems they have are not fixable and not worth living with, plus I figure the Fame plays a factor as well.

    Anyways it seems like this topic isn't really gonna go anywhere, but the main point remains the same; somebody (whether on purpose or by mistake), is reporting too many incidents as "school shootings" which isn't gonna help matter and it makes things seen worse than they really are, it shouldn't count as a shooting simply because its "close enough to school grounds" or "accidental discharge" (as far as I'm concerned students shouldn't have guns on them at public schools, which should have some way to guarantee the students safety anyways), only when somebody gets shot actually on school grounds.

    And there is still no way you can prove that 240 school shootings are happening in the 9 month school year (approx 36 weeks, or about 6-7 shootings every week)

  3. #133

    Default

    No, the "main point" is not that people are "reporting too many incidents". The problem is more school shootings are happening than we are willing to tolerate.

    And the point I'm trying to make about background checks is that even perfect background checks will not stop a person from simply walking into a house and picking up a gun if one is available.

  4. #134

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SgtOddball View Post
    Also to anyone who says "but there hasn't been a school shooting in the UK so gun laws must work"...... Trust me, it is only a matter of time before another school shooting does happen in the UK, and certainly wouldn't put it passed one of the extremist groups either.
    There hasn't been a school shooting in the UK since the only one we've ever had, which was 22 years ago, but somehow gun laws here don't work? That's absurd.

    There have been multiple instances of shootings in recent US history where more people were killed in a single incident than are murdered by firearms in an entire year in the UK. You can count mass/spree shootings in UK history on the fingers of one hand. They're vanishingly rare.

    The UK has its own set of problems, but it's absurd to suggest gun controls don't work.

    Edited to add - Interesting to look at the gender split of school / mass shootings. Majority of the perpetrators are male, which is curious. What is it about masculinity in the USA that's isolating young men so much more than women? Why are there so few female perpetrators?

  5. #135

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    No, the "main point" is not that people are "reporting too many incidents". The problem is more school shootings are happening than we are willing to tolerate.

    And the point I'm trying to make about background checks is that even perfect background checks will not stop a person from simply walking into a house and picking up a gun if one is available.
    Which is why they really should require a proper gun safe, then a random person cant just "pick up the gun" they would either need to know how to unlock it (like knowing the combination) or break in, and a proper gun safe wouldn't be easy for an Average Joe to break into.

    And yes more school shootings are happening than we are willing to tolerate because we all would like to see them stop (so even 1 is 1 too many) and feel for the victims, but it is a multi-layered problem and I think deserves a multi-layered solution; very strict gun control will never be a "be all end all".

  6. #136

    Default

    The problem is "they" will never require adequate gun safes. "They" are funded and programmed by the NRA and other pro-gun lobbyists to enforce the sacred 2nd commandment of the constitution that forbids restrictions on gun use.

    OK. I'm done venting.

    What "we" need to do is get our representatives to enact laws making gun owners responsible for how their guns are used. This is a very practical, direct, common sense approach to one of the problems caused by the widespread presence of guns in our society. It won't solve all of the many problems related to guns but, done right, it would make it much harder for an enraged loser to simply pick up a loose gun somewhere and go on a shooting spree.

    I pay over $1000 a year in fees, taxes, and premiums to maintain my right to drive. On top of that, I can be held responsible for misuse of my vehicle, even if someone else was driving it at the time. There are hundreds of regulations and restrictions I have to abide by to legally own and operate a motor vehicle. There are also laws requiring safety equipment that makes new or used vehicles more expensive to buy. Despite all that I still enjoy the convenience and relative freedom of being able to drive.

    This is the exact same approach we need to take with guns. We need tougher laws to make gun owners accountable for how their guns are used because right now they don't take it seriously enough to keep their guns out of the reach of others. Gun safes would be one of the legal requirements but there would need to be regulations for the proper use of those safes, and there would be other regulations. We do it for cars. We can do it for guns.

  7. #137

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    The problem is "they" will never require adequate gun safes. "They" are funded and programmed by the NRA and other pro-gun lobbyists to enforce the sacred 2nd commandment of the constitution that forbids restrictions on gun use.

    OK. I'm done venting.

    What "we" need to do is get our representatives to enact laws making gun owners responsible for how their guns are used. This is a very practical, direct, common sense approach to one of the problems caused by the widespread presence of guns in our society. It won't solve all of the many problems related to guns but, done right, it would make it much harder for an enraged loser to simply pick up a loose gun somewhere and go on a shooting spree.

    I pay over $1000 a year in fees, taxes, and premiums to maintain my right to drive. On top of that, I can be held responsible for misuse of my vehicle, even if someone else was driving it at the time. There are hundreds of regulations and restrictions I have to abide by to legally own and operate a motor vehicle. There are also laws requiring safety equipment that makes new or used vehicles more expensive to buy. Despite all that I still enjoy the convenience and relative freedom of being able to drive.

    This is the exact same approach we need to take with guns. We need tougher laws to make gun owners accountable for how their guns are used because right now they don't take it seriously enough to keep their guns out of the reach of others. Gun safes would be one of the legal requirements but there would need to be regulations for the proper use of those safes, and there would be other regulations. We do it for cars. We can do it for guns.
    I'm glad to see what you are suggesting is neither a gun ban (like some of the anti-gun side wants, even though it's about personal dislike of certain Firearms, and how they don't THINK such gun EVER has any practical use; we already banned real "weapons of war" for civilians; stop acting like such a measure will save any lives) or beyond what really should be in place already; hundreds of dollars for a proper gun safe doesn't seem unreasonable when the consequences could be loss of life of multiple innocent people.

  8. #138

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    What "we" need to do is get our representatives to enact laws making gun owners responsible for how their guns are used.
    This is a great idea. If you want to own a firearm, you need to have liability insurance. $10m per firearm sounds like a reasonable amount.

  9. #139

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by PCPilot View Post
    This is a great idea. If you want to own a firearm, you need to have liability insurance. $10m per firearm sounds like a reasonable amount.
    That made me think of something from the distant past.

    I don't know what the rules are now but many years ago, if you wanted to fly radio controlled model airplanes at club sponsored fields or events you were required to have a million dollars worth of liability insurance. That was a Modelers Association requirement rather than a federal law, but the reasoning is the same. It just makes sense to apply the same reasoning to firearms on a national level.

    I believe a requirement for gun safes and liability insurance would greatly reduce the number of guns carelessly left laying around because it would drive home the point to gun owners that they will be held responsible. Making it a "requirement" would mean there would be some kind of penalty for failure to comply. That penalty would most likely result in some nominal fines of a few thousand dollars for negligence, but the biggest impact would be the negligence conviction itself. It would expose the gun owner to greater liability in civil suits. If a gun owner had $10m in liability insurance and one of that person's guns was used in a mass killing, the insurance company might just hand over that $10m to the plaintiffs and leave the gun owner liable for the remainder of the damages. Gun owners may not be concerned about the level of gun violence in the country, but they will be concerned about losing all their money.

Similar Threads

  1. Downtown Dallas Shootings
    By StrawberryRaven in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13-Jul-2016, 03:10
  2. High School Shootings.
    By Roland in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 19-Mar-2008, 03:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.