Real issue behind school shootings and gun control

That's one of the big downsides of capitalism. No love for the people, only for the money they make. Once the last tree is dead, the last fish caught, and the last river poisoned, we'll learn we can't eat money.

 

But there's still a big problem of these "responsible" people shooting innocent people with no prior indication of such behaviour, therefore allowing them to obtain guns. I consider Australian gun laws far too lax, let alone the gun "control" most US people support. We don't even allow the ownership of guns on the grounds of self-defence, and that still isn't enough to adequately prevent gun murders and suicides, let alone the ridiculously weak laws that Americans think will be enough.

 

I thought Australia only had about 30 gun homicides last year. For a country that size, that's still amazing. I'd love to model our gun control after Australia, sans some cases of self defense.

 

You can think of me as biased, since I'm a leftist, but I think it is pretty obvious for anyone willing to take a closer look around that this system is designed to worship money, not the well being of people, it's sustained by greed, not compassion, therefor I deem it as broken and completely unsustainable. Anyway, I don't want to get too political here.

I agree that, unfortunately, somehow there always seem to be a few people who manage to "cheat" the rules and still manage to use to hurt innocent persons and even themselves. And as you said, even with the much stricter laws on the issue you have there in Australia, tragedies still take place, but to think about the US where right-wingnuts support the right of everyone to go to the store and buy one just like you're buying milk or something.. It's simply idiotic and backwards.

 

Fine, maybe just allow bolt-action firearms to be used. With a semi-auto firearm, it's way easy to shoot ten people in less than 10 seconds. If we replaced that scenario with a bolt action gun, then it would take much longer, allowing people to run away.

---------- Post added 22nd Jan 2014 at 04:21 PM ----------

Not only that, since guns are part of our constitution, then it is etched into our minds that gun ownership is a right. In Europe, except for Switzerland, gun ownership is not guaranteed by law. Since the United States is totally divided on gun control, each state have their own gun laws. A state may have an assault weapons ban, but other states may not have that at all.

In Japan, it's completely illegal to own a gun, unless you're a hunter. However, some of my pro-gun friends pointed out that killing is still bound to happen, referring to the Sarin Gas Attack in 1996. Well of course killing is bound to happen, but the point is that reducing gun ownership will make it harder to kill someone. I doubt people can stab someone to death by accident.

 

You're confusing semi-automatic with fully automatic. Semi-automatics reload the chamber, but will not refire unless you pull the trigger again. Fully automatic will continue to fire if the trigger is pulled.

 

Absolutely, the ownership of a gun is not something to be taken lightly and to be handed to everyone who thinks it's cool to shoot or show it off to friends. I've noticed that US is indeed very divided on this whole gun control issues, hell, the US is divided on almost everything - immigration, healthcare, welfare, education, you name it! And also on all of these other issues I side with those with whom I sided regarding the gun control thing. Isn't it interesting that particulary those "red" states that have a more relaxed gun legislation are the ones where gun crimes and assaults happen most times? Oh, well...

Yes, I'm so sick of hearing that abstract argument "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", well, maybe so, but think about it, what is the difference between a sick in the head person entering a school with an assault riffle and one with a butcher's knife, which one is more dangerous, and which one of them has more chances of killing more people by simply moving a finger before even they have a chance to run. Figureds.

 

Maybe I'm a victim of the infamous gun agenda media, but I'm of the impression that it's exactly the opposite. Illinois and Michigan, two northern, presumably "blue" states have the worst violent crime. And Chicago and Washington DC specifically have extremely harsh gun control, yet the worst murder rates. Vice-versa for states with lax gun laws and low gun/other violence.

This is an argument unto itself that's been rehashed a bazillion times, but I don't think the crime is despite the laws-- it's because of it. Criminals are emboldened when they know their marks (lawful citizens at least) are unlikely to be armed. And if somebody so intent on shooting others can get a gun illegally, he or she will.

That is why I would approve of policies which allow concealed carry on campuses. A shooting might still take place (and be more sudden because a gun could pop up anywhere), but look at what happens historically when the shooter faces ANY kind of adversity-- s/he commits suicide instantly. Maniacs bent on semi-random violence don't deal with targets who shoot back. I would bet that school shootings would become less frequent and when they do happen, would show far lower death tolls.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that they do, and these "maniacs" often have easy access to guns in the same way "responsible" owners do.

The idea that guns for self-defence are much use is ridiculous. Unless there's a particularly vigilant and permanent team of guards everywhere, there's not going to be warning of a shooting, making having a weapon pretty redundant for defence. All it does is enable the same people who commit the crimes to get guns under the same pretext as those who get them thinking guns will defend them.

 

Well, maybe I'm the one who read the wrong statistics, I'm not an American, so the information that I have is only from what I read here and there sometimes, so it's possible I may have read a biased source, who knows.

My opinion is that the system is broken at its core. I mean, again, there are plenty of countries where guns can't be even owned by citizens, and crime rate is quite lower. Yes, people should be able to defend themselves, yes, those who want to use guns for stealing or attacking will find a way to get their hands on a gun anyway, but at the same time, look at all these mass shootings, tragedies, that happen because the wrong people happened to be in possesion of a gun. Concealed weapons can be an idea, but if this measure was to be established, and everyone should therefor be requiered to carry one, wouldn't any potential maniac shooter automatically be aware of the fact and think in advance? It's such a vicious circle really, but I don't deny that there is a possibility that it could work, I'm just having a hard time enviosioning how the whole thing would function.

It's quite complicated when you put this way, I'm also thinking that it has a lot to do with the fact that guns are undeniably a part of American culture and many people, particulary in more traditional communities which I've heard the US has plenty of in the South, still hold unto these "values" and react as if the core of their beliefs is being attacked. There are so many things that need to be considered, finding a proper solution will sure not be easy.

 

Should be pointed out that a lot of Swiss male citizens will have firearms training as a result of their conscription time in the army. They're also obliged to keep their service weapon (a SIG 550 and/or SIG P220 for officers) at home during their time in uniform. They're not allowed to store ammunition at home unless they're protecting something sensitive, however they can purchase some at shooting ranges but only for use at said ranges. After their service time is done they can keep their weapons but require a license.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - They're liberal by European standards, but I think if you tried to introduce any of those checks in the States you'd just induce mass foaming at the mouth.

 

As I have already stated in this thread, America could have the strictest gun laws in the world starting tomorrow (never mind the fact that it wouldn't be good policy), and that still would not significantly reduce gun violence.

New gun restrictions don't just magically make over 300 million guns already in the possession of people disappear into thin air.

It's just an inconvenient truth that many idealists prefer to ignore.

 

Confiscate them and have buy-backs. That's how it worked in Australia. It's not as if the government made restrictions on paper only. Naturally, we had and have a lot less people and guns, but we also had a lot less resources than America can harness. If Washington can spy on hundreds of millions of people, possess a ridiculously large military, and launch large invasions of two countries in one decade, the government can also harness the same resources for the purpose of actual internal security.

Not that they'd dare disagree with business lobbies, no matter which party.

Of course it can't work the same way, but remember that the "idealists" also want children to be able to attend school without being slaughtered, so advocating some action is somewhat better than saying "can't be helped, move on."

 

Uh, no thanks on the bolded part.

Government has no business confiscating guns from people. Period. The NSA is bad enough. As for the buy-back, that may work somewhat, but that wouldn't drastically reduce the number of guns in America at all. This country has a gun culture, and people undoubtedly wouldn't just give up their guns that easily. In fact, there would be massive chaos with what you're proposing. It's just beyond impractical. I mean, it's not like Barack Obama is going to go door-to-door and search every house until he has every gun...

And you're overstating my point. I think having an increase in armed security guards in schools, along with the other things I proposed earlier should be law. Being realistic rather than advocating for something that is not realistic, and just not all that smart is hardly taking a "can't be helped, move on" approach.

Terrible things are going to happen in life; there's no way around it. I think it's better to be realistic when approaching that fact by trying to reduce those terrible things in a sensible way.

 

I see this has devolved into a pointless gun debate.

The problem of school shooters has to do with the fact that we are ignoring what they have in common with each other:

1) White males, heterosexual
2) Not popular/athletic
3) Generally intelligent
4) Had feelings of being slighted by a specific individual or society

This is not about bullying. It's not about guns. It's only indirectly about mental health. What this is really about is the socialization of white heterosexual males to become sociopaths who are narcissistic and feel entitled to social status. When they are denied the things they want (as many people in high school/college are) they react violently. No amount of laws will change this. The way we raise white males has to change. They must learn to cope with disappointment. They must not be brought up thinking that violence solves things. They must be taught to express their emotions and not to bottle it up because men don't cry. They must be encouraged to explore their sexuality freely without it threatening their masculinity. And most importantly they must NOT be socialized to feel entitled to anything.

Now, don't get on my case about how not all white straight males shoot up their school. There are various explanations why many don't. Guys that are athletic are generally successful socially and sexually. They don't feel slighted. Others act out in different ways, video games, role playing. The point is that there is definitely an at-risk subset of white males who can potentially become shooters. The fact that most shooters have the aforementioned traits in common proves it.

 

This is the best analysis of the School Shooting phenomenon I have seen to date.
It echoes some of my own thoughts as to why it's nearly always a certain type of white male.

 

Arguing about gun control is like whacking off, without the "happy ending". It is a Constitutional right, essentially guaranteeing the right and means of self-defense. When people misuse guns (or knives, or baseball bats etc) we put them in jail. When they don't, we leave them alone. It's called "freedom", just like the freedom to be gay; if you don't think such freedoms are important look at what is happening in Russia to gays right now.

In the 1930s, before many of you were born, a guy named Adolph Hitler disarmed an entire racial population, and then proceeded to murder them on a mass scale; the SS had guns, the military had guns, the police had guns, the Jews didn't; theirs were taken away, then they were slaughtered. If you are thinking "that was then, this is now", the government of Syria is currently engaged in war with its own citizens, using military equipment against disarmed civilians; that is right "now", not "then".

In this country, police departments are becoming increasingly militarized. They are being trained in combat tactics; they are being armed with military-type automatic weapons; they are buying used military equipment from the DOD as well as new crowd control equipment from sources that sell to the military. They invade homes, they shoot pets, they confiscate property, and they conduct ever increasing intrusive forms of surveillance on the public using computers and cameras. Many times they do this without warrants or probable cause. Sometimes they get the "wrong address" and attack civilians using these militarized tactics. Increasingly I am thinking that the guns we SHOULD be worried about are the ones in the hands of these paramilitary SWAT teams, not Grandpa's squirrel rifle. They remind me a lot of the pictures I have seen of the SS squads in Nazi Germany.

What this has to do with coming out of the closet, I don't know, but as a member of a minority which has been known to be assaulted and beaten up by homophobic assholes, I think I will hang onto the right to protect myself, and the equipment to do it with, thank you very much. You are free to disarm yourself if you like; it's perfectly legal. Kinda like what Whoopie Goldberg says about gay marriage, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't tell others they can't.

 

I'm not arguing for banning guns, I'm only saying that if in order to receive a gun license, a person would a have to pass a series of relevant psychological examinations and a more detailed backround check, maybe less potential psychos would get their hands on them and less school shootings would happen. Just wishful thinking here.

 

I think part of the cause is being taught violence at a young age through, nerf guns, beebee guns, hunting, video games, tv, movies, music, books, newspapers, magazines, etc.

 

I doubt that hunting has caused more violence against humans in the US. People have hunted for years, it's not something that has just come around..

My parents taught me gun safety by first having me handle a nerf gun and then when I was older, they gave me a beebee gun. There are many people that teach their children gun safety this way.

As for the media, parents should know better than to let their 5 year old play or watch an R (or M) rated movie or video game.

These forms of media cause the most problems when you are dealing with people that cannot separate reality from fantasy. Which, that takes us right back to the mental health argument.

In other words, your whole post is full of generalizations that have only been proven to be true is a small amount of the population. If you look at the violence in early cartoons, you will see that they are much more violent than anything on television today. Cartoons are one of the few genres of television that has improved their violence track record.