Another school shooting


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 1,152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

The black raven wrote:


As a citizen of Europe, I find all of the parts I bolded above HIGHLY insulting.

And I do not feel that insulting European posters is a proper tactics to counter arguments in favor of gun control.

I am left wondering though. How many lives were saved because of the second amendment ? And how many were lost ?

Raven, my statements are not intended to offend you. They are facts. If you take them as offensive, then that's regretable.

Many lives have been saved by the lawful use of firearms. Check the internet if you want details or specifics. Simply put, the police don't get there fast enough. Do they ever get there fast enough? If your preference is to be at the mercy of the madman with the gun, hoping the police arrive to save you, that's your choice. The criminals have guns. Pass all the laws to ban them you want. All it does is limit you. Not them.


Killer_GM wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
Historically however, within the past 100 years, Europeans have killed MILLIONS of their fellow countrymen with guns, rather than ten thousand per year here in the USA.
Wow, comparing the daily gun violence prevalent in the US with WWI and WWII. That's some messed up logic. One way of getting around Godwin's law I suppose.
Many of the deaths in WWII did not occur during combat. I think you can consider those "violent crime." Some occurred when the SD showed up after the Germans had left the area in question, and started killing civilians. By most estimates, the SD killed roughly one million people. Or in concentration camps (6 million plus, not in combat) or Soviet Gulags. Or ask the German people who were forced out of the countries they lived in following the end of the war, and had to walk to Germany. Most were women, children, and seniors age 55 plus. Out of roughly 15 million who made the trek, two million died, many were killed by & others were raped or victimized by the inhabitants of those countries the Germans left. Would you consider those millions "combat casualties"?

No. I wouldn't consider any state sponsored ethnic cleansing or genocide to be even vaguely comparable to individual crimes.

Technically, you are correct. Those actions were violent and were "war crimes". Nonetheless, they are completely distinct in motivation and in nature from any of the gun violence that has taken place in the US in the last 50 years or so.


Whew! Alot of ugliness here. And I understand, I do. We are outraged when things like this happen. I think we wonder when viloence of this magnitude will touch our own lives directly.

But lets all take a deep breath and clear our heads a moment. We all see the same problem, more or less, but stand divided on how to fix it.

I propose we concentrate on what we share, and not our differences. Just for a few moments at least.

I make the assumption that no one here is a viloent criminal or has a history of violence. Why is that, exactly? What makes us different from someone that is?

Take myself, for instance. I have been around for more decades than I care to remember, and have never intentionally injured another human being. I am white, born to low to middle income parents (varied at times), was raised with religion (balk if you want, but it does give me boundaries and modifies my behaviors.) and was raised to be a "good citizen".

I survived an abusive stepfather. I lived in some bad neighborhoods and had bullets wiz by me on two occasions. I have been attacked by a knife wielding assailant. I have lived on the edge of poverty on a couple of occassions. I have faced "hopeless" situations from time to time.

And yet, I go to work everyday, pay my bills, obey the law, enjoy some of the good things life has to offer, and spend some time worrying about tommorow. I expect that most of you have lives very similiar to mine.

So, what makes us different than these violent people? Biologically, genetically, we are the same in most cases. What causes some people to crack and others to simply press on and to endure? I am being serious here, not sarcastic. How do we "fix" people so that they dont lose it and find someone to victimize?

Sometimes, I have thought it would be better to just take away all the "bad" things (subjective) that can (subjective) corrupt people. Drugs, alcohol, pornography, guns, etc. My Mom always reminds me that people have to have the right to choose how to live their lives, even if it does lead to destruction, (subjective)

Thoughts?


thejeff wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
Historically however, within the past 100 years, Europeans have killed MILLIONS of their fellow countrymen with guns, rather than ten thousand per year here in the USA.
Wow, comparing the daily gun violence prevalent in the US with WWI and WWII. That's some messed up logic. One way of getting around Godwin's law I suppose.
Many of the deaths in WWII did not occur during combat. I think you can consider those "violent crime." Some occurred when the SD showed up after the Germans had left the area in question, and started killing civilians. By most estimates, the SD killed roughly one million people. Or in concentration camps (6 million plus, not in combat) or Soviet Gulags. Or ask the German people who were forced out of the countries they lived in following the end of the war, and had to walk to Germany. Most were women, children, and seniors age 55 plus. Out of roughly 15 million who made the trek, two million died, many were killed by & others were raped or victimized by the inhabitants of those countries the Germans left. Would you consider those millions "combat casualties"?

No. I wouldn't consider any state sponsored ethnic cleansing or genocide to be even vaguely comparable to individual crimes.

Technically, you are correct. Those actions were violent and were "war crimes". Nonetheless, they are completely distinct in motivation and in nature from any of the gun violence that has taken place in the US in the last 50 years or so.

And can be, accordingly, safely ignored in discussions of modern gun violence.

Sovereign Court

Killer_GM wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
Historically however, within the past 100 years, Europeans have killed MILLIONS of their fellow countrymen with guns, rather than ten thousand per year here in the USA.
Wow, comparing the daily gun violence prevalent in the US with WWI and WWII. That's some messed up logic. One way of getting around Godwin's law I suppose.
Many of the deaths in WWII did not occur during combat. I think you can consider those "violent crime." Some occurred when the SD showed up after the Germans had left the area in question, and started killing civilians. By most estimates, the SD killed roughly one million people. Or in concentration camps (6 million plus, not in combat) or Soviet Gulags. Or ask the German people who were forced out of the countries they lived in following the end of the war, and had to walk to Germany. Most were women, children, and seniors age 55 plus. Out of roughly 15 million who made the trek, two million died, many were killed by & others were raped or victimized by the inhabitants of those countries the Germans left. Would you consider those millions "combat casualties"?

I would still call this a false analogy. What we are talking about is gun control, the murder of children, and for some reason you want to bring god and war into it? The Taliban are very well armed and by all accounts religious group but they're not doing so well against a trained well equipped army. Belief in god and having a gun isn't going to protect you from a military nor is it likely to save you or your loved ones from a crazed gunman. This guy was well armed, wearing body armor, and didn't care who he shot. You with your pistol would have needed to have been very accurate indeed. I suppose the average armed citizen is prepared to shoot under pressure? What might have saved lives is if the gunman had needed to reload every six shots or so. What might have saved lives is if the bullets weren't there to fire every time he pulled the trigger. My heart goes out to those families that are burring loved ones. Maybe this tragedy couldn't have been prevented, but we still have a chance to prevent the next one. All our not talking about it is going to do is allow another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Widow of the Pit wrote:
So, what makes us different than these violent people? Biologically, genetically, we are the same in most cases. What causes some people to crack and others to simply press on and to endure? I am being serious here, not sarcastic. How do we "fix" people so that they dont lose it and find someone to victimize?

These are issues of mental health, and not something that can be discussed lightly or inexpertly. The best we can do is recognize that mental health needs to be a priority, and that it currently is marginalized, and do everything we can to ensure that everyone receives the same level of competent, regular treatment for mental ailments as they do for physical ailments.

But it's really hard to reach that point. There are literally people in this thread who don't want to attribute what happened to mental instability, and feel more comfortable just calling it "evil" and being done with it. Until those people get out of the way, we can't make progress. We are stalled.

Sovereign Court

Widow of the Pit wrote:
Sometimes, I have thought it would be better to just take away all the "bad" things (subjective) that can (subjective) corrupt people. Drugs, alcohol, pornography, guns, etc. My Mom always reminds me that people have to have the right to choose how to live their lives, even if it does lead to destruction, (subjective)

Porn doesn't kill people, people kill people . . .

I don't think we can prevent people from hurting other people or themselves, that's not something that we're equipped to do, but what we can do is maybe prevent people from killing a lot of people in the future. I don't want to take people's guns but maybe we need to be controlling what we sell and to whom a little better. Was this kid a known threat before he got his hands on semi automatic handguns and possibly a semi automatic rifle? Maybe, just maybe, if there had been stricter gun laws they couldn't have kept those weapons in the home? Perhaps they should have kept them at a gun range where they needed ID and keys to get them out? These are just ideas off the top of my head but they seem like pretty simple solutions that might not have saved the mother's life but certainly may have prevented the school shooting.


Betts, your statements are so loaded with condescending and personal attacks, as to me loathe to answer them. To suggest that I am not competent in my work in psychology is ridiculous. It is however par for the course for many liberals however to demonize and marginalize others, when their (liberal) arguments don’t hold up. You’ve done that nicely. You continue the common practice of pointing to a few extremist nuts and then attempting to liken all conservatives to them. Using that same logic, I should be comparing you to Stalin or Che Guevara. I won’t do that.

You stated: “Never mind. You're the blame-everything-but-the-guns sort. It's not possible that a culture that fetishizes guns and marginalizes mental health issues is responsible for this, to any degree.”
KGM-That’s a rather negative way to frame my statements (you speak as though you can read thoughts

You stated: “No, in your mind it's because we took God out of the classroom.”
KGM- I didn’t say that. You’re pulling the usual stuff again (see paragraph 1 above).

You stated: “I can show you thousands of secular atheists who don't perform these types of atrocities, but you have absolutely no problem blaming this on a lack of God in our lives.”
KGM-I’m sure there are many atheists who do not commit atrocities. I did not state that there atheists uniformly committed atrocities. The way you worded your statement above (deliberately or not, I don’t know, I can’t read people’s minds…), the ‘our’ suggests that you too are an atheist, which would explain a lot. The lack of a spiritual angle in people’s lives generally in my opinion is a problem. In societies where religion is suppressed, have we not seen evidence of that? (Soviet Russia, Mao’s China)

You stated: “You're a HUGE hypocrite. You don't care about respect. You're just upset with me and the others calling for gun control in this thread because you don't like gun control. It's clear that you have no issue politicizing any of this.”
KGM-You lost me on this one. No I probably don’t care about respect. I’m not at all upset with you. You’re absolutely entitled to your opinions, and I have no issue with you disagreeing with me about mine. I don’t enjoy your condescension and personal attacks, but you’re a liberal. That’s what you do.

You stated: “To what? Evilness? That's your incredible explanation? That there are people who are just evil and there's no other explanation, no underlying mental health problem that might result in their committing crimes like these? No, it's just evil?
And you're a mental health professional? I weep.”
KGM-your statement here is simply ridiculous and uncalled for. It illustrates your desperation in your argument by suggesting that I am incompetent professionally because I don’t favor gun control. That statement says a lot about you Betts. Furthermore, I have not argued against all gun control. You can read my posts again if you wish.
Mental health problems are being used as an excuse for far too much. I don’t need a PhD to tell you that. And as you can undoubtedly produce a multitude of atheists who don’t harm others, so can I produce a multitude of people with mental health problems who don’t either. Mental health problems are not an excuse for violence. I didn’t state they may not be a factor, but mental health problems do not compel people to harm others.

You stated: “We've done loads of research on gun control and its consequences. Additionally, we have countries around the world with much stricter gun control laws than ours, many of which have lower crime rates and whose citizens are very thankful for the lack of guns.”
KGM-Like which cities? Chicago. Obama's home town. The only state with NO concealed carry permit? It has one of the highest murder rates in the country.

You stated: “No, there really aren't. I've never met a single person who wants to ban private ownership of firearms. And, like you, I've worked in D.C.. But probably unlike you, I worked for liberals. And there still wasn't anyone who wanted to take your guns.”
KGM-Although I probably need not name names, I was appointed to the position I held by the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid-D, from Nevada. He was a Democrat last time I checked.

You stated: “and they use tragic events such as this in an effort to forward their goals of eliminating all gun ownership incrementally. Which is TOTALLY different from what you're doing, which is encouraging us to put more guns in schools.”
KGM- In the hands of responsible and properly trained individuals, yes. What difference is that from hiring police. They protect the public. Many schools (particularly high schools) have 1 police officer inside at any given time. This is not new.

You stated: “And you think this is a good reason to avoid further gun controls? When a crazy adolescent decides to go on a rampage and finds that guns are so easily accessible that all he has to do is take them (including a Bushmaster Type M4!) from his OWN MOTHER, you don't think there's a problem there? No?”
KGM=Easily accessible. Unfortunately yes. The shooter's mother clearly failed in her responsibility to place her firearms inside a gun safe and additionally safeguard them with gun locks. Had she done so, (using your logic) we're not having this conversation. It is possible the shooter would have sought out firearms elsewhere. Possibly not. We'll never know.

You stated: “A good start would be laws that require a clean mental bill of health for the gun owner and all others in the household before a license to own a weapon is granted (and don't act like that's a huge deal; most animal shelters have more stringent requirements for adopting a dog than what I'm describing). Not to mention yearly re-registration of firearms, and laws that hold you accountable if a gun you own is improperly secured and is later used to commit a crime.”
KGM- A clean bill of mental health for gun owners, maybe, but for others in the household, that’s insane. I can’t have a gun, if my wife is depressed? It is however the responsibility of law abiding gun owners to safeguard their firearms so that those firearms are not used by others against the gun owner’s wishes or intent.

Grand Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
but I'm sure neither of these things had anything to do with what happened yesterday, right, conservatives?

I swore to myself, I'd stay out of this...

Oh well...

In most states, a firearms owner may possess firearms within the same household as someone that is not able to legally own or possess them themselves (e.g. felons, and those with known mental disorders) so long as the firearms are properly stored and secured (which would ideally be in a gun safe with trigger locks for example).

Clearly, the mother had not ensured the firearms were secure (either by having them in a cheap locking "gun cabinet" (that anybody with a couple of minutes and a screw driver can easily get into), or left the keys to the gun locks/safe within easy reach, etc...

This might very well have been prevented with just a little gun safety on the part of the mother.


A bit more on that last statement, in requiring that a "clean bill of mental health" be given for any gun owner, you are placing a great deal of power in the hands of a mental health therapist, who's personal opinions for/against guns would potentially be used to uphold/deny a person's constitutional rights. That is unlikely to hold up. Furthermore, with the federal government currently in the position to take greater oversight of the health care industry, through the president's Affordable Care act, it would potentially place oversight of mental heath treatment (through mental health parity laws) in the hands of the government. A mental health therapist, working for the government, telling people they can't have guns. Not good.


Scott Betts wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Banning semi automatics:

Pro:

Mass shootings will likely kill fewer people.

Cons:

You won't be able to shoot the entire herd at once.

When the government takes over you will have to face a tank with a revolver instead of a glock

Yeah, I love the argument that we should be able to possess assault weapons in case we need to protect ourselves from the big bad government.

Pray tell exactly what an "assault weapon" is.


PsychoticWarrior wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:


According to the CDC, there were 10,228 deaths due to alcohol impaired crashes in the US in 2010. They further state that 1.4 million drivers were arrested in the same year for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Furthermore, the CDC states that there were 32,885 deaths in motor vehicle accidents in 2010.

Shall we adopt your stance against firearms and apply it to alcohol and/or motor vehicles?

Ultimately, the problem is much much deeper than just guns and gun control.

So why is it the US has the highest gun related death rate of any first world nation? Most of the other nations have similar stats on alcohol and motor vehicle related deaths but only gun deaths have a difference in the 1000s per year. It *doesn't* go much deeper than gun control. America just loves its guns and 10000 dead a year is, apparently, a small price to pay to be able to have them.

Yes, that is why the Swiss are drowning in blood. Yes, I know the policy on keeping military weapons at home changed, but it was in effect for a long time, and there wasn't that much violence during that time.

Sovereign Court

If your wife is depressed and their is a handgun in the home then yes I'd advise against that. She is far more likely to kill herself with a handgun then say an overdose of sleeping pills. Households that have fire arms have higher successful suicide rates then households without them because firearms are so good at what they're designed to do.

Liberty's Edge

Killer_GM wrote:

A bit more on that last statement, in requiring that a "clean bill of mental health" be given for any gun owner, you are placing a great deal of power in the hands of a mental health therapist, who's personal opinions for/against guns would potentially be used to uphold/deny a person's constitutional rights. That is unlikely to hold up. Furthermore, with the federal government currently in the position to take greater oversight of the health care industry, through the president's Affordable Care act, it would potentially place oversight of mental heath treatment (through mental health parity laws) in the hands of the government. A mental health therapist, working for the government, telling people they can't have guns. Not good.

Let's ignore the misrepresentations of the Affordable Care act...

Other then anti-government paranoia, why?


Killer_GM wrote:
It is however par for the course for many liberals however to demonize and marginalize others, when their (liberal) arguments don’t hold up.

Could you please keep partisanship out of this? It's rather annoying. I'm more on your side than his here, and I'm a good deal more liberal than he is.


Scott Betts wrote:


But it's really hard to reach that point. There are literally people in this thread who don't want to attribute what happened to mental instability, and feel more comfortable just calling it "evil" and being done with it. Until those people get out of the way, we can't make progress. We are stalled.

Equally troubling is your notion that no person would never intentionally want to harm others, and any instance of them doing so, would have to indicate some sort of mental illness. Some people are willing to harm others. They're not mentally ill. They just do some very terrible things. Many liberals seem terrified of making "moral judgments" of people and/or their actions.

Grand Lodge

Guy Humual wrote:
If your wife is depressed and their is a handgun in the home then yes I'd advise against that.

Having a loaded firearm just lying around is not proper gun safety...

Sovereign Court

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
PsychoticWarrior wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

According to the CDC, there were 10,228 deaths due to alcohol impaired crashes in the US in 2010. They further state that 1.4 million drivers were arrested in the same year for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Furthermore, the CDC states that there were 32,885 deaths in motor vehicle accidents in 2010.

Shall we adopt your stance against firearms and apply it to alcohol and/or motor vehicles?

Ultimately, the problem is much much deeper than just guns and gun control.

So why is it the US has the highest gun related death rate of any first world nation? Most of the other nations have similar stats on alcohol and motor vehicle related deaths but only gun deaths have a difference in the 1000s per year. It *doesn't* go much deeper than gun control. America just loves its guns and 10000 dead a year is, apparently, a small price to pay to be able to have them.
Yes, that is why the Swiss are drowning in blood.

They do (or did) have one of the highest per capita firearm suicide rates in the world, certainly the highest in Europe, but no mass murder yet. Still it seems to show that more guns leads to more gun death. Who would have thunk it?


Guy Humual wrote:
If your wife is depressed and their is a handgun in the home then yes I'd advise against that. She is far more likely to kill herself with a handgun then say an overdose of sleeping pills. Households that have fire arms have higher successful suicide rates then households without them because firearms are so good at what they're designed to do.

You are (respectfully) factually incorrect. Women are far more likely (way far more) to commit suicide by taking an overdose, than by using a firearm. Statistics are clear on this. Men over the age of 50 are the most likely to kill themselves by using a firearm.

Sovereign Court

Digitalelf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
If your wife is depressed and their is a handgun in the home then yes I'd advise against that.
Having a loaded firearm just lying around is not proper gun safety...

I agree. I'm also sure that your earlier point about gun safety may be a valid point, but as I understand it the first victim in this mass murder spree was likely the mother and if she was dead, even if the guns were secure and locked away, gaining access may have been as simple as using a key.


What needs to be remembered is that there has never been a country where guns are more ingrained in the public life than the USA. It's not like Britain, Australia, or Canada where they were present but only as tools. Here, they are a figure of romance. Illegal or not, we won't give it up easily. Pass all the laws you want. A signifigant number of owners won't surrender them and will feel totally justified in this, and a lot of these guns won't be found. Ban guns, and they will still be everywhere here. It will not be hard to get one if you want one. It isn't even that hard in Britain (they said it themselves), and Britain never had our rates or glorification of gun ownership. This is why I severely doubt that gun ownership would actually work for the US.

Liberty's Edge

Killer_GM wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
If your wife is depressed and their is a handgun in the home then yes I'd advise against that. She is far more likely to kill herself with a handgun then say an overdose of sleeping pills. Households that have fire arms have higher successful suicide rates then households without them because firearms are so good at what they're designed to do.
You are (respectfully) factually incorrect. Women are far more likely (way far more) to commit suicide by taking an overdose, than by using a firearm. Statistics are clear on this. Men over the age of 50 are the most likely to kill themselves by using a firearm.

He may simply have been imprecise.

Women are more likely to attempt suicide via overdose then a bullet. The notional depressed wife is more likely to kill herself with the gun if she attempts suicide with it then if she used pills, however.

Sovereign Court

Killer_GM wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
If your wife is depressed and their is a handgun in the home then yes I'd advise against that. She is far more likely to kill herself with a handgun then say an overdose of sleeping pills. Households that have fire arms have higher successful suicide rates then households without them because firearms are so good at what they're designed to do.
You are (respectfully) factually incorrect. Women are far more likely (way far more) to commit suicide by taking an overdose, than by using a firearm. Statistics are clear on this. Men over the age of 50 are the most likely to kill themselves by using a firearm.

More likely as in more likely to be successful. I am well aware of those statistics. Most women have multiple attempts whereas men usually get it on the first try. People survive overdoes, gunshots to the head less so.


Guy Humual wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
PsychoticWarrior wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

According to the CDC, there were 10,228 deaths due to alcohol impaired crashes in the US in 2010. They further state that 1.4 million drivers were arrested in the same year for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Furthermore, the CDC states that there were 32,885 deaths in motor vehicle accidents in 2010.

Shall we adopt your stance against firearms and apply it to alcohol and/or motor vehicles?

Ultimately, the problem is much much deeper than just guns and gun control.

So why is it the US has the highest gun related death rate of any first world nation? Most of the other nations have similar stats on alcohol and motor vehicle related deaths but only gun deaths have a difference in the 1000s per year. It *doesn't* go much deeper than gun control. America just loves its guns and 10000 dead a year is, apparently, a small price to pay to be able to have them.
Yes, that is why the Swiss are drowning in blood.
They do (or did) have one of the highest per capita firearm suicide rates in the world, certainly the highest in Europe, but no mass murder yet. Still it seems to show that more guns leads to more gun death. Who would have thunk it?

What I would like to see is overall violent crime and suicide rates. This is because the rate of gun ownership does not only effect the rate of gun crimes and suicide, it effects all violent crime and suicide.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
What needs to be remembered is that there has never beena country where guns are more ingrained in the public life than the USA. It's not like Britain, Australia, or Canada where they were present but only as tools. Here, they are a figure of romance. Illegal or not, we won't give it up easily. Pass all the laws you want. A signifigant number of owners won't surrender them and will feel totally justified in this, and a lot of these guns won't be found. Ban guns, and they will still be everywhere here. It will not be hard to get one if you want one. It isn't even that hard in Britain (they said it themselves), and Britain never had our rates or glorification of gun ownership. This is why I severely doubt that gun ownership would actually work for the US.

I don't buy that, we Canadians get American music, television, and movies, our cultures are pretty intertwined. The difference is it's much harder to get a rifle up here never mind a handgun. We still have gun violence, usually criminals and gangs, and often the weapons used were American and smuggled across the border.


I'll agree with you on that last bit Guy.

Thanks Kelsey.


Guy Humual wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
What needs to be remembered is that there has never beena country where guns are more ingrained in the public life than the USA. It's not like Britain, Australia, or Canada where they were present but only as tools. Here, they are a figure of romance. Illegal or not, we won't give it up easily. Pass all the laws you want. A signifigant number of owners won't surrender them and will feel totally justified in this, and a lot of these guns won't be found. Ban guns, and they will still be everywhere here. It will not be hard to get one if you want one. It isn't even that hard in Britain (they said it themselves), and Britain never had our rates or glorification of gun ownership. This is why I severely doubt that gun ownership would actually work for the US.
I don't buy that, we Canadians get American music, television, and movies, our cultures are pretty intertwined. The difference is it's much harder to get a rifle up here never mind a handgun. We still have gun violence, usually criminals and gangs, and often the weapons used were American and smuggled across the border.

It's not the same. We've always had more guns around than you guys, we manufacture a lot more than you do, and our constitution protects them while yours doesn't. We also have levels of social strife (a major reason to want a gun) and economic inequality (a major reason for crime) that dwarf yours. Watch all the American TV you want, it won't do the same as a saturation of guns backed by constitutional protection and a society with a ton of socio-economic conflict did with us. That's why you have fewer guns and less violence. We unleashed a genie that you didn't, and we aren't going to get it back in the bottle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
Betts, your statements are so loaded with condescending and personal attacks,

No, they're not. You just don't like what they have to say, because they disagree with you.

Quote:
as to me loathe to answer them.

Then don't. It'd save me time replying.

Quote:
To suggest that I am not competent in my work in psychology is ridiculous.

Not really. You are dismissive of mental illness and instability as a cause for violence, including mass violence. That's not something that a mental health professional ought to do.

Quote:
It is however par for the course for many liberals however to demonize and marginalize others,

Not really, and honestly, we don't care if you think we're being condescending. That's way less of a concern than the combination of you being wrong while believing that you're right.

Quote:
when their (liberal) arguments don’t hold up.

If the arguments we're making didn't hold up, you'd be able to argue against them. You can't. In fact, every post you make continues to get derided for the sort of crazy internal logic it uses. It just gets worse. You don't need to keep going.

Quote:
You’ve done that nicely. You continue the common practice of pointing to a few extremist nuts and then attempting to liken all conservatives to them.

I've spent the last couple of pages pointing at you, among other people. What does that say?

Quote:
Using that same logic, I should be comparing you to Stalin or Che Guevara. I won’t do that.

Using what logic? I haven't compared you to famous awful conservatives. I haven't compared you to anyone, in fact. I've just responded to your posts.

Deal with it.

Quote:

You stated: “Never mind. You're the blame-everything-but-the-guns sort. It's not possible that a culture that fetishizes guns and marginalizes mental health issues is responsible for this, to any degree.”

KGM-That’s a rather negative way to frame my statements (you speak as though you can read thoughts

I don't need to read minds. You are the blame-everything-but-the-guns sort. You've blamed a lack of faith. You've blamed "evil". You've blamed the dissolution of the sacred family structure. You've blamed liberals. You've blamed teachers not having enough guns. You've blamed everything and everyone except actual firearms.

Quote:

You stated: “No, in your mind it's because we took God out of the classroom.”

KGM- I didn’t say that. You’re pulling the usual stuff again (see paragraph 1 above).

No, I'm not. And I quote:

Killer_GM wrote:
the replacement of a religious based morality with that of a secular-progressive “morality” where overt religious life is ridiculed and belittled

Backpedal all you want. You made it abundantly clear where you were coming from.

Quote:

You stated: “I can show you thousands of secular atheists who don't perform these types of atrocities, but you have absolutely no problem blaming this on a lack of God in our lives.”

KGM-I’m sure there are many atheists who do not commit atrocities. I did not state that there atheists uniformly committed atrocities.

That's not the point. Did you even read what I wrote?

Quote:
The way you worded your statement above (deliberately or not, I don’t know, I can’t read people’s minds…), the ‘our’ suggests that you too are an atheist, which would explain a lot.

Nope, Catholic. Good try, though! Leave the attempts at mind-reading to others.

Quote:
The lack of a spiritual angle in people’s lives generally in my opinion is a problem.

Yeah. We know.

Quote:
In societies where religion is suppressed, have we not seen evidence of that? (Soviet Russia, Mao’s China)

Nope. There are plenty of countries out there with levels of adherence to religious faith far below that of the United States, with associated levels of violence similarly low. Blaming atheism is a really awful tactic. You don't like atheism, so you seek to find fault with it in everything. That's now how the world works. You should find the problem first, and then decide what needs to be changed in order to solve it.

Quote:

You stated: “You're a HUGE hypocrite. You don't care about respect. You're just upset with me and the others calling for gun control in this thread because you don't like gun control. It's clear that you have no issue politicizing any of this.”

KGM-You lost me on this one. No I probably don’t care about respect. I’m not at all upset with you. You’re absolutely entitled to your opinions, and I have no issue with you disagreeing with me about mine. I don’t enjoy your condescension and personal attacks, but you’re a liberal. That’s what you do.

"I hate condescending and personal attacks, you dirty condescending, personal-attacking liberal!"

Again, hypocrisy.

Quote:

You stated: “To what? Evilness? That's your incredible explanation? That there are people who are just evil and there's no other explanation, no underlying mental health problem that might result in their committing crimes like these? No, it's just evil?

And you're a mental health professional? I weep.”
KGM-your statement here is simply ridiculous and uncalled for.

No, it's not.

Quote:
It illustrates your desperation in your argument by suggesting that I am incompetent professionally because I don’t favor gun control.

No, I am concerned about your professional ability because you don't believe that mental health issues lie at the heart of mass shootings like this. That's incredibly worrying.

In addition, the anecdotal evidence you used to back up your analysis has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Many people have pointed that out. That's also concerning.

Quote:
That statement says a lot about you Betts.

I guess, but not what you think it does.

Quote:
Furthermore, I have not argued against all gun control. You can read my posts again if you wish.

Yeah, let's do that!

Killer_GM wrote:
Regrettably, these types of tragedies often become “opportunities” for strong proponents of stricter gun control measures to promote their ‘agenda.’
Killer_GM wrote:
The only familiar drum beat we hear is that of more gun control. In your original posts (Scott Betts), you scoff at the idea of arming a “Mrs. Henderson” to prevent such an incident from occurring. Yet there area likely some professionals in a school setting who could handle such a responsibility.
Killer_GM wrote:
Many laws passed to regulate various aspects of American life, business & society have far more reaching ends than the originators ever intended.
Killer_GM wrote:
You may want “more reasonable” gun control in this country, but there are many people who want no private ownership of firearms in this country, and they use tragic events such as this in an effort to forward their goals of eliminating all gun ownership incrementally.
Killer_GM wrote:
I would contend that no amount of gun control would have altered the situation here.
Killer_GM wrote:
How would more gun control laws have thwarted that? Unless you (or others) are talking about denying the shooter’s mother from obtaining/owning firearms in the first place. And that would clearly infringe on the law abiding citizens Right to use/own firearms under the 2nd amendment.
Killer_GM wrote:
That does not mean that outlawing gun ownership, or passing counterproductive gun laws which do nothing is the answer.

Yeah, you clearly have no opinion whatsoever on the issue of gun control.

Quote:
Mental health problems are being used as an excuse for far too much.

They are being used as a reasoned explanation for far too little.

Quote:
I don’t need a PhD to tell you that.

There are PhD-holders who would disagree.

Quote:
And as you can undoubtedly produce a multitude of atheists who don’t harm others, so can I produce a multitude of people with mental health problems who don’t either.

THAT WAS THE POINT. How are you missing this?

Quote:
Mental health problems are not an excuse for violence.

"Excuse" isn't a word worth talking about. We're looking for explanations, not excuses. Excuses don't help us address the problem. Explanations do. You are a mental health professional. You do not work with excuses. You work with explanations.

Or you ought to, at least.

Quote:
I didn’t state they may not be a factor, but mental health problems do not compel people to harm others.

YES THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN AND DO.

This is really, really worrying. Is this something that you share consensus with the rest of your field in? I have never in my life met a well-respected mental health professional (whether in research, therapy, or otherwise) who does not believe that mental health plays a role in violent behavior. It's incredible that you believe otherwise.

Quote:

You stated: “We've done loads of research on gun control and its consequences. Additionally, we have countries around the world with much stricter gun control laws than ours, many of which have lower crime rates and whose citizens are very thankful for the lack of guns.”

KGM-Like which cities? Chicago. Obama's home town. The only state with NO concealed carry permit? It has one of the highest murder rates in the country.

I said countries. Not cities.

Again, please read what you're being told.

Quote:

You stated: “No, there really aren't. I've never met a single person who wants to ban private ownership of firearms. And, like you, I've worked in D.C.. But probably unlike you, I worked for liberals. And there still wasn't anyone who wanted to take your guns.”

KGM-Although I probably need not name names, I was appointed to the position I held by the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid-D, from Nevada. He was a Democrat last time I checked.

So you worked for the Senate. I worked for an actual liberal organization. And I still never met any of the people you are trying to tell us are all over the place. Where are they, exactly?

Quote:

You stated: “and they use tragic events such as this in an effort to forward their goals of eliminating all gun ownership incrementally. Which is TOTALLY different from what you're doing, which is encouraging us to put more guns in schools.”

KGM- In the hands of responsible and properly trained individuals, yes. What difference is that from hiring police. They protect the public. Many schools (particularly high schools) have 1 police officer inside at any given time. This is not new.

Did you even read what I said? You tried to demonize me for "politicizing" the tragedy, while in the same breath calling for political changes of your own flavor. I mean come on.

Quote:

You stated: “And you think this is a good reason to avoid further gun controls? When a crazy adolescent decides to go on a rampage and finds that guns are so easily accessible that all he has to do is take them (including a Bushmaster Type M4!) from his OWN MOTHER, you don't think there's a problem there? No?”

KGM=Easily accessible. Unfortunately yes. The shooter's mother clearly failed in her responsibility to place her firearms inside a gun safe and additionally safeguard them with gun locks. Had she done so, (using your logic) we're not having this conversation. It is possible the shooter would have sought out firearms elsewhere. Possibly not. We'll never know.

And that's an excuse for doing nothing?

Quote:

You stated: “A good start would be laws that require a clean mental bill of health for the gun owner and all others in the household before a license to own a weapon is granted (and don't act like that's a huge deal; most animal shelters have more stringent requirements for adopting a dog than what I'm describing). Not to mention yearly re-registration of firearms, and laws that hold you accountable if a gun you own is improperly secured and is later used to commit a crime.”

KGM- A clean bill of mental health for gun owners, maybe, but for others in the household, that’s insane.

No, it's not. Everyone should be evaluated for mental health along the same lines as we have yearly or twice-yearly physician check-ups.

Quote:
I can’t have a gun, if my wife is depressed?

Mental health professionals (like yourself, ironically) would set the guidelines by which a person might qualify as mentally healthy enough to own a firearm.

Quote:
It is however the responsibility of law abiding gun owners to safeguard their firearms so that those firearms are not used by others against the gun owner’s wishes or intent.

So you'd be in favor of laws that hold the firearm's owner partly responsible for crimes committed with their weapons if they fail to properly secure them?


Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.
If you are the sort of person who believes that there is a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired - then you are the sort of person who should probably move to a different, less warzone-like neighborhood.

What if you don't have the resources to move?


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Banning semi automatics:

Pro:

Mass shootings will likely kill fewer people.

Cons:

You won't be able to shoot the entire herd at once.

When the government takes over you will have to face a tank with a revolver instead of a glock

Yeah, I love the argument that we should be able to possess assault weapons in case we need to protect ourselves from the big bad government.
Pray tell exactly what an "assault weapon" is.

An imprecise but convenient term used to refer to firearms that are particularly effective at killing multiple targets at close range in quick succession.

I'm well aware of the controversy surrounding the idea of labeling a set of firearms "assault weapons". I tend to avoid the term, but the post you quote was largely in jest and incredulous.


Killer_GM wrote:
Equally troubling is your notion that no person would never intentionally want to harm others, and any instance of them doing so, would have to indicate some sort of mental illness.

I have never claimed that to be the case. Stop misrepresenting what others are saying to you.

Quote:
Many liberals seem terrified of making "moral judgments" of people and/or their actions.

We're not terrified of it. We're appalled that so many people are so ready to leap to judgment. Particularly those who cling the hardest to their scripture, which explicitly cautions them not to judge, and to seek understanding.


Scott Betts wrote:


So you'd be in favor of laws that hold the firearm's owner partly responsible for crimes committed with their weapons if they fail to properly secure them?

If you don't practice proper gun safety, you should get the thing taken away. If something happens, you should be held to a degree of responsibility. Americans need to start learning to be more careful with firearms than we are right now.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
What if you don't have the resources to move?

Then you have a problem on your hands. But let's not act like a high crime rate isn't a valid justification for moving. It's one of the primary factors considered when families are deciding where to move to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


So you'd be in favor of laws that hold the firearm's owner partly responsible for crimes committed with their weapons if they fail to properly secure them?
If you don't practice proper gun safety, you should get the thing taken away. If something happens, you should be held to a degree of responsibility. Americans need to start learning to be more careful with firearms than we are right now.

Yes, we do.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Banning semi automatics:

Pro:

Mass shootings will likely kill fewer people.

Cons:

You won't be able to shoot the entire herd at once.

When the government takes over you will have to face a tank with a revolver instead of a glock

Yeah, I love the argument that we should be able to possess assault weapons in case we need to protect ourselves from the big bad government.
Pray tell exactly what an "assault weapon" is.

An imprecise but convenient term used to refer to firearms that are particularly effective at killing multiple targets at close range in quick succession.

I'm well aware of the controversy surrounding the idea of labeling a set of firearms "assault weapons". I tend to avoid the term, but the post you quote was largely in jest and incredulous.

The problem is that a large portion of the assault weapons ban was aimed towards things that are perfectly reasonable to want to possess. It was more a ban on things that looked scary than on things capable of mass slaughter. Under the ban, one could easily get a weapon capable of just that. It was a feel good measure that had little actual effect, and as a result the term infuriates me.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


So you'd be in favor of laws that hold the firearm's owner partly responsible for crimes committed with their weapons if they fail to properly secure them?
If you don't practice proper gun safety, you should get the thing taken away. If something happens, you should be held to a degree of responsibility. Americans need to start learning to be more careful with firearms than we are right now.

To the point of requiring liability insurance?


Scott Betts wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
What if you don't have the resources to move?
Then you have a problem on your hands. But let's not act like a high crime rate isn't a valid justification for moving. It's one of the primary factors considered when families are deciding where to move to.

It doesn't matter how justified you are if you lack the resources to move, like many in high crime areas do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
The problem is that a large portion of the assault weapons ban was aimed towards things that are perfectly reasonable to want to possess.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. A lot of the legislation in question was focused on firearms and accessories that looked scary or "military" with very little consideration given to its practical use. It's a case of politicians legislating without doing their due diligence in consulting experts. Definitely something that we need to do better at. We need effective firearms control. Not counterproductive legislation that turns the idea of gun control into a joke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
What if you don't have the resources to move?
Then you have a problem on your hands. But let's not act like a high crime rate isn't a valid justification for moving. It's one of the primary factors considered when families are deciding where to move to.
It doesn't matter how justified you are if you lack the resources to move, like many in high crime areas do.

Absolutely, and we should be focused as a country on rehabilitating high crime areas.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
The problem is that a large portion of the assault weapons ban was aimed towards things that are perfectly reasonable to want to possess.
Yes, that's absolutely correct. A lot of the legislation in question was focused on firearms and accessories that looked scary or "military" with very little consideration given to its practical use. It's a case of politicians legislating without doing their due diligence in consulting experts. Definitely something that we need to do better at. We need effective firearms control. Not counterproductive legislation that turns the idea of gun control into a joke.

I agree with you on the sentiment, just not on what is and is not effective.


Krensky wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


So you'd be in favor of laws that hold the firearm's owner partly responsible for crimes committed with their weapons if they fail to properly secure them?
If you don't practice proper gun safety, you should get the thing taken away. If something happens, you should be held to a degree of responsibility. Americans need to start learning to be more careful with firearms than we are right now.
To the point of requiring liability insurance?

It would depend on how much it cost. After all, a lot of poor farmers depend on their guns. A lot of people where I live (rural Montana) have guns because they use them for their jobs.

Sovereign Court

We have lots of economic inequality, we have crime and violence same as any other nation on earth, but what we don't have is ready access to firearms. We still have a gun death per capita higher then most European countries though, partly because of weapons coming north, but despite what you might think, we do have gun culture in Canada. We like hunting, people that live in the country usually have weapons to protect livestock, and there is a fair bit of sport shooting as well. We don't have semi automatic weapons, but my father owns a rifle as did my grandfather, and I've shot a few rifles when I visited relatives living in Alberta. We have had shootings in schools. The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weapons, it's hard to get a permit to carry a hand gun, and most folks don't use firearms for protection in our cities.


Guy Humual wrote:
We have lots of economic inequality, we have crime and violence same as any other nation on earth, but what we don't have is ready access to firearms.
You have a degree of these things, but not as much as America does.
Quote:
We still have a gun death per capita higher then most European countries though, partly because of weapons coming north, but despite what you might think, we do have gun culture in Canada. We like hunting, people that live in the country usually have weapons to protect livestock, and there is a fair bit of sport shooting as well.
People in Britain, France, and Germany hunt, protect livestock, and shoot for sport, too. That doesn't necessary make them gun cultures, beccause they aren't as glorified as they are here.
Quote:
We don't have semi automatic weapons, but my father owns a rifle as did my grandfather, and I've shot a few rifles when I visited relatives living in Alberta.
Many over in Europe have.
Quote:
We have had shootings in schools.
That happens in Europe, too.
Quote:
The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weapons, it's hard to get a permit to carry a hand gun, and most folks don't use firearms for protection in our cities.

That works for Canada to a degree. We are not Canada.

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
Widow of the Pit wrote:
So, what makes us different than these violent people? Biologically, genetically, we are the same in most cases. What causes some people to crack and others to simply press on and to endure? I am being serious here, not sarcastic. How do we "fix" people so that they dont lose it and find someone to victimize?

These are issues of mental health, and not something that can be discussed lightly or inexpertly. The best we can do is recognize that mental health needs to be a priority, and that it currently is marginalized, and do everything we can to ensure that everyone receives the same level of competent, regular treatment for mental ailments as they do for physical ailments.

But it's really hard to reach that point. There are literally people in this thread who don't want to attribute what happened to mental instability, and feel more comfortable just calling it "evil" and being done with it. Until those people get out of the way, we can't make progress. We are stalled.

I agree Scott, its not about Evil - that's just a lie our elders tell us because they choose to think they are on the side of Good. But neither is it about mental illness. Its about irresponsibility and dispossession. The USA, as insane as its population is, are people who for the most part have not signed off on their own Constitution - and are thus not signatories to its rules and protections; Have contempt for Laws that are only of use when it comes time to protect them from the Death Penalty when it comes time to punish them for their actions; and Are burdened by people such as yourself who feel that having to seek some consent of the whole populace is inconvenient to the degree that to get things done everyone else should as you say it 'get out of the way'.

Liberty's Edge

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


So you'd be in favor of laws that hold the firearm's owner partly responsible for crimes committed with their weapons if they fail to properly secure them?
If you don't practice proper gun safety, you should get the thing taken away. If something happens, you should be held to a degree of responsibility. Americans need to start learning to be more careful with firearms than we are right now.
To the point of requiring liability insurance?
It would depend on how much it cost. After all, a lot of poor farmers depend on their guns. A lot of people where I live (rural Montana) have guns because they use them for their jobs.

It would be an interesting actuarial table, if only get a handle on the risks and costs.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.
If you are the sort of person who believes that there is a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired - then you are the sort of person who should probably move to a different, less warzone-like neighborhood.
What if you don't have the resources to move?

Where in the US is there "a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired"? Seriously, where is this happening on a regular basis?

This seems beyond even the most gang infested urban "war zones". Maybe, maybe if you're a gang member or living in the same house as one. Of course, then you're not likely to be too concerned about having legal guns.
Am I wrong? Are groups of armed thugs really attacking people's homes and engaging in gun battles with the residents on a regular basis and it just doesn't make the news?

Anyway, the fantasy that you'd be able to fight off the multiple armed assailants if you only had a Kalashnikov, but dammit, you only had 6 shots and they got you while you were reloading sounds like some one who's seen far too many movies.


thejeff wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Maybe some of us want "assault weapons" (people really need to learn the idiocy of that term) to defend ourselves. If my home is attacked by more that one person you better believe i want a big clip. Many gun owners see this as being about taking away the ability to defend ourselves as much as the women see abortion about protecting themselves. I hope folks never need to unload a Kalashnikov to stay alive but i'll be damned if i would want to take that option.
If you are the sort of person who believes that there is a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired - then you are the sort of person who should probably move to a different, less warzone-like neighborhood.
What if you don't have the resources to move?

Where in the US is there "a real possibility that their home will be invaded, while they are present, by multiple armed assailants for whom a loaded handgun would not be a significant deterrent - especially once fired"? Seriously, where is this happening on a regular basis?

This seems beyond even the most gang infested urban "war zones". Maybe, maybe if you're a gang member or living in the same house as one. Of course, then you're not likely to be too concerned about having legal guns.
Am I wrong? Are groups of armed thugs really attacking people's homes and engaging in gun battles with the residents on a regular basis and it just doesn't make the news?

Anyway, the fantasy that you'd be able to fight off the multiple armed assailants if you only had a Kalashnikov, but dammit, you only had 6 shots and they got you while you were reloading sounds like some one who's seen far too many movies.

I'm not contending the existence or non-existance of such gun battles. I'm contending the implication that if where you live is crappy you can just move.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
We have lots of economic inequality, we have crime and violence same as any other nation on earth, but what we don't have is ready access to firearms.
You have a degree of these things, but not as much as America does.
Quote:
We still have a gun death per capita higher then most European countries though, partly because of weapons coming north, but despite what you might think, we do have gun culture in Canada. We like hunting, people that live in the country usually have weapons to protect livestock, and there is a fair bit of sport shooting as well.
People in Britain, France, and Germany hunt, protect livestock, and shoot for sport, too. That doesn't necessary make them gun cultures, beccause they aren't as glorified as they are here.
Quote:
We don't have semi automatic weapons, but my father owns a rifle as did my grandfather, and I've shot a few rifles when I visited relatives living in Alberta.
Many over in Europe have.
Quote:
We have had shootings in schools.
That happens in Europe, too.
Quote:
The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weapons, it's hard to get a permit to carry a hand gun, and most folks don't use firearms for protection in our cities.
That works for Canada to a degree. We are not Canada.

So, instead of doling out more guns, wouldn't it be better to try and become more like Canada? It seems like they have fewer problems, how is that not something to strive for?

Sovereign Court

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
We have lots of economic inequality, we have crime and violence same as any other nation on earth, but what we don't have is ready access to firearms.
You have a degree of these things, but not as much as America does.
Quote:
We still have a gun death per capita higher then most European countries though, partly because of weapons coming north, but despite what you might think, we do have gun culture in Canada. We like hunting, people that live in the country usually have weapons to protect livestock, and there is a fair bit of sport shooting as well.
People in Britain, France, and Germany hunt, protect livestock, and shoot for sport, too. That doesn't necessary make them gun cultures, beccause they aren't as glorified as they are here.
Quote:
We don't have semi automatic weapons, but my father owns a rifle as did my grandfather, and I've shot a few rifles when I visited relatives living in Alberta.
Many over in Europe have.
Quote:
We have had shootings in schools.
That happens in Europe, too.
Quote:
The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weapons, it's hard to get a permit to carry a hand gun, and most folks don't use firearms for protection in our cities.
That works for Canada to a degree. We are not Canada.

This is beginning to sound like American exceptionalism. Things might work in other countries but this is America damnit! Honestly, America isn't that different from anyone else, you take away the easy access to firearms and gun crimes will slowly drop.


GentleGiant wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
We have lots of economic inequality, we have crime and violence same as any other nation on earth, but what we don't have is ready access to firearms.
You have a degree of these things, but not as much as America does.
Quote:
We still have a gun death per capita higher then most European countries though, partly because of weapons coming north, but despite what you might think, we do have gun culture in Canada. We like hunting, people that live in the country usually have weapons to protect livestock, and there is a fair bit of sport shooting as well.
People in Britain, France, and Germany hunt, protect livestock, and shoot for sport, too. That doesn't necessary make them gun cultures, beccause they aren't as glorified as they are here.
Quote:
We don't have semi automatic weapons, but my father owns a rifle as did my grandfather, and I've shot a few rifles when I visited relatives living in Alberta.
Many over in Europe have.
Quote:
We have had shootings in schools.
That happens in Europe, too.
Quote:
The key difference is that we don't have easy access to semi automatic weapons, it's hard to get a permit to carry a hand gun, and most folks don't use firearms for protection in our cities.
That works for Canada to a degree. We are not Canada.
So, instead of doling out more guns, wouldn't it be better to try and become more like Canada? It seems like they have fewer problems, how is that not something to strive for?

I'm fine becoming more economically and culturally similar to Canada. I quite like Canada. I just doubt that in our specific case severe restrictions on firearms will work, because we have circumstances Canada doesn't, which requires a different approach.

251 to 300 of 1,152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Another school shooting All Messageboards