School shootings false statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Private
Point is, why can't they work on multiple issues that are causing these shootings to happen instead of just doing things in the name of "Gun Control".
You and I actually aren't too far apart on gun issues.

There are multiple factors involved in the increase of school shootings over the last few years that need to be addressed. The reason gun control is a top priority for reducing school shootings is not that our current lack of gun control is what makes kids want to kill their classmates. It's a top priority because it is strikingly obvious that our lack of control over guns is what is making these shootings so deadly. Irresponsible gun ownership may not be the cause of violent outbursts in people, but it is what enables people to amplify their violence to the extreme. Gun owners have to be held accountable for how there guns are used. Period. If you own a gun and you carelessly allow that gun to be borrowed, stolen, or bought by someone who uses it for a crime you must bear some of the responsibility.

At the very least, gun owners and guns should be subject to regulations and liability on a level similar to those applied to motor vehicles and drivers. We aren't overly upset about those regulations because we've grown used to them and accept them as common sense, but the penalties for just one act of carelessness can be severe if it results in a serious accident. An otherwise good driver could lose everything he/she owns from one such act. We accept this level of regulation and accountability because motor vehicles can be very dangerous if used carelessly. We need to apply the same mentality to gun ownership and use. It's just plain common sense.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,787
Role
Diaper Lover
I dont think keeping control of FireArms and keeping them in a real gun safe when you cant is too much to ask for; and yes if their Guns are taken so easily and a Mass Shooting happens the Gun Owner should be held very responsible, yeah it is possible (though I doubt very likely) even a proper Gun Safe could get broken into, but at least you cant blame the gun owner then because they did all they could.

I just dont see Gun Bans, such as a ban on guns like the AR15 as having much to do with saving lives though, a little bit of practice and preparation would lower the gap between how many innocent people die in a shooting between a Semi-Automatic and slower firing guns considerably, particularly if the perp has multiple guns.

So as much as a lot of people spin it as a "Life Saving Measure", it is really about not liking that particular type of gun and therefore thinking nobody should have access to it, even though Semi-Automatics are a far cry away from real Machine Guns and the Government allows people to legally acquire them.

If it weren't for the Anti-Gun side labeling such guns as "Assault Weapons", which is both inaccurate and designed to make people fearful, and all these Public Mass Shootings; nobody would even be on this War-Path.

This emphasis on "Assault Weapons" is rather stupid, the emphasis should be on realistic gun control measures and trying to prevent these shootings no matter what.

Focusing specifically on Assault Weapons is both a distraction and complete nonsense because getting shot and dying is getting shot and dying; you won't be enjoying getting shot by any gun more than any other gun, dying by any class of gun is still gonna suck equally as much.
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Private
I dont think keeping control of FireArms and keeping them in a real gun safe when you cant is too much to ask for; and yes if their Guns are taken so easily and a Mass Shooting happens the Gun Owner should be held very responsible, yeah it is possible (though I doubt very likely) even a proper Gun Safe could get broken into, but at least you cant blame the gun owner then because they did all they could.
I strongly agree and believe this is what we should focus on as one of the common sense measures to try to reduce gun violence in this country. A law requiring gun owners to take adequate steps to prevent easy access to their guns would force awareness on all gun owners that failure to prevent others from using their guns carelessly or illegally would result in serious penalties.

A law like this will be strongly opposed by powerful NRA lobbyists because it is an added cost for gun ownership, and because it makes gun owners responsible for how their guns are used. But, as I see it, both these things are logical, sensible, and necessary, because not enough gun owners are taking responsibility on their own.
I just dont see Gun Bans, such as a ban on guns like the AR15 as having much to do with saving lives though, a little bit of practice and preparation would lower the gap between how many innocent people die in a shooting between a Semi-Automatic and slower firing guns considerably, particularly if the perp has multiple guns.
...
If it weren't for the Anti-Gun side labeling such guns as "Assault Weapons", which is both inaccurate and designed to make people fearful, and all these Public Mass Shootings; nobody would even be on this War-Path.
That second statement touches on the main concern I have with assault weapons: the psychological factor. Yes, the thought of assault weapons does produce fear in people; for good reason. Assault weapons were designed to assault people and they look like they were designed to assault people. This psychological factor is what makes people to want to own them. The way these guns look gives those people a feeling of power over others. I can't 'prove' this psychological factor exists, but I know you see it, too, because you are aware of the fear it causes.

A psychological factor is present in that first statement as well, just a little different. A drug dealer or a gang-banger has a rational reason for having an assault weapon. The rest of us don't. It is so unlikely we will be attacked by "perps [with] multiple guns" that the belief we need an assault weapon for self defense is 99.9% paranoia and .01% possibility.

Many people say we need better background checks. This will sound like a joke but I assure you I am serious: The fact that a person wants an assault weapon, or a firearm that resembles an assault weapon, is an indication that that person may be suffering from paranoia and/or has some need for a sense of power over people by inducing fear in them. Both of these things should raise red flags in a background check and should be closely examined.
 

Roland007

Est. Contributor
Messages
84
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
I think the second amendment is violated when we forbid people we call insane/ill whatever, to own weapons because the constitution doesn’t exclude them.

The evil government after all, can also threaten their civil liberties.

There is no argument that can close this discussion, its politics after all.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,787
Role
Diaper Lover
Well, technically speaking the AR15 was before the M16 and while they look quite Similar they are almost completely different guns, the M16 has burst fire and Full automatic and was made to work in conditions that would mess up the AR15, that's why they didn't just adopt the AR15.

But I digress, after all this whole "ban the AR15" thing is because some people have this spectacular fear of Semi-Automatic "Tactical style" guns they dont seem to have about other guns; basically I dont like it so it should be banned.

It is not meant to look that way to scare people, it was designed to be the way it is for utility, the utility being easy change-ability to a different caliber (so you dont need a bunch of guns, just switch the barrel and clip), and the rails being for accessories (flashlights, lasers, different sights, etc)

the scare tactics were created by the anti-gun side to scare people by calling them "Assault Weapons" (even though that is actually incorrect, a military AK47 is an "Assault weapon" though it doesn't look like an "Assault weapon" to the general public) and saying they should be banned for your own safety; but it isn't for your safety, it's just a starting point to eventually try getting all guns banned.

My point about perps having multiple guns isn't even about justifying the AR15 for home defense, I'm saying when these school shootings have happened it isn't all that rare for them to have multiple guns, like Columbine and that one at the school in Texas.

By having a plan and preparing ahead it doesn't make very much difference at all what kind of gun(s) the school shooter has; once again the focus on which type of gun is just a distraction to get people focused on a gun ban rather than actually directly trying to stop these school shootings.

But I am done trying to talk common sense with you anti-gun people, you have drank the cool aid and wont listen to any kind of reason, despite that the AR15 wasnt meant for mass shootings and there are several practical reasons why it was designed how it was; this "psychological fear" wouldnt be such a huge thing if not for the anti-gun side trying to brainwash people into thinking gun bans are about safety when it is only about control.
 

AnalogRTO

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,668
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent
Of course, the term 'assault weapon' has a huge number of variations. California defines it here and it covers a huge array of weapons. The definitions will vary from state to state, and the term is often used as a catch-all scare phrase by those looking to ban firearms completely. Of course, when a wide net is used to define something as an 'assault weapon' it helps to scare those not looking hard at the way it gets defined.

I like gun control. It's why I use both hands on my weapon...
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Private
BabyTyrant said:
the scare tactics were created by the anti-gun side to scare people by calling them "Assault Weapons" (even though that is actually incorrect, a military AK47 is an "Assault weapon" though it doesn't look like an "Assault weapon" to the general public) and saying they should be banned for your own safety; but it isn't for your safety, it's just a starting point to eventually try getting all guns banned.

My point about perps having multiple guns isn't even about justifying the AR15 for home defense, I'm saying when these school shootings have happened it isn't all that rare for them to have multiple guns, like Columbine and that one at the school in Texas.
...this "psychological fear" wouldnt be such a huge thing if not for the anti-gun side trying to brainwash people into thinking gun bans are about safety when it is only about control.
You keep talking about the "anti-gun side" but they are only a small subset of the gun control side which is trying to reduce the kind of uncontrolled gun use you talk about - school shooters having multiple weapons. The reason school kids have such a nice selection of guns to choose from is because so many gun owners are not responsible enough to keep their guns under control. So you're right. It is only about control. Who in their right mind wants uncontrolled gun use in this country?
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,787
Role
Diaper Lover
It isn't just control of weapons though, they fear the American Citizens will rise up and start shooting all the dirty rotten politicians that keep saying they will do something good, only to turn around and do the opposite when elected.

I have no problem with gun owners being required to keep their guns locked up, or otherwise under "Control", what I have a problem with is this fallacy that the AR15 is "a tool for war" and that it was designed to "look scary", and that somehow banning "Assault Weapons" (really they mean Semi-Automatics that have certain features, not true Assault Weapons, and not "Weapons of War") will make any kind of a guarantee that Mass shootings of innocent people will stop; when there is no guarantee and if the law deters criminals from obtaining guns they will go to the black market; putting a damper on the black market would go a long way further than a ban on Semi-Automatic guns people want to see banned because they dont like them.

Having opinions is fine, but to say a gun designed for ease of use and utility was made how it is PURELY TO CAUSE FEAR is both incorrect and something the Anti-Gun side is pushing, not the Pro-Gun side.

I'm right with you when it comes to locking up guns not in use and i will say that some places make getting guns too easy; like Georgia for example; I saw an episode of Black Market and it talked about how people used to be able to go to a gun show there, pick out a private seller, buy a gun, and walk out; no background check, it also talked about how private sales dont require any kind of background check, and how some groups of people just steal guns from places after hours (break in, steal guns, run out; all in under 2 minutes flat).

But also one thing that drives the black market is that some places make getting guns impossible by legal means, so you have people willing to buy black market guns even at a high markup.

So while I agree with common sense gun control, I feel like much could be gained with a kind of leveling; places with strict gun control could stand to gain from allowing people the means to legally acquire guns (of course if they pass a background check and follow the laws), and other places could stand to gain from a little restriction
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Private
Adequate background checks are not possible. They would be expensive, a violation of privacy rights, and opposed by the powerful political god of the pro-gun side. Making minor improvements to our current inadequate checks will have to suffice, but this won't solve our school shooting problem. Turning our schools into battle zones by making guns easier for everyone to get is not an acceptable solution for many people. Most of us would rather prevent kids from taking guns to school than just shooting them if they do. Shooting them would be cheaper and easier, but cheap and easy isn't the same as morally acceptable. I don't want to take that option until all other options have been explored. The pro-gun side seems to want to make that the first and final solution.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,787
Role
Diaper Lover
Yes loss of life would be regrettable and I'm saying in general a "no (legal) gun policy" in cities doesn't make things perfect, nor does it actually deter people from getting guns (through the black market) or resorting to shooting people because 1. They use guns as a tool to commit crimes (and some people will resist even if they dont have a gun on them), or 2. They use the gun because a gun gets pointed at them first.

I'm saying I think people should be legally allowed guns in those areas if they can pass a background check and follow the laws; which should extend to a REQUIREMENT to have a proper gun safe.

Sure background checks aren't perfect, but it is better than not running a background check and just handing out guns to anybody with the money.

And by running a background check, at least you can disqualify people with a felony (which should easily show up, as should a stay in the hospital for mental health reasons; does not even need to verify, just say "mental health problems".) So it's not like a truck full of guns with somebody saying "Everybody, come over here and get your free guns, free guns for everybody"
 

Roland007

Est. Contributor
Messages
84
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
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.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,787
Role
Diaper Lover
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)
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Private
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.
 

philder74

Est. Contributor
Messages
252
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur
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?
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,787
Role
Diaper Lover
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".
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Private
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. :smile:

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.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,787
Role
Diaper Lover
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. :smile:

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.
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
183
Role
Diaper Lover
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.
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Private
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.
:2thumbsup: 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top