Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ericrwalker, Apr 2, 2012.
[tongue firmly planted in cheek]
If only everybody in that classroom had a gun!
[/tongue firmly planted in cheek]
I wonder what to make of this. Disarming law abiding citizens is never the way to go, because criminals will always have them.
I just don't know what's going through peoples minds when they are shooting up schools. This time a religious school. I am not going to jump to conclusions on what type of person would do such a thing. I am eager to hear what excuse this guy has.
What's with the month of April? The Columbine shooting happened on 4/20, Virginia Tech was on 4/16.
It's Springtime for Hitler... and Germany.
Well, it certainly is possible that 5 people would be alive today had that been the case, or perhaps the shooter never would have attempted such a disgusting act, knowing that he wouldnt e able to walk into one of the most vulnerable places in America and do what he wanted.
You say tongue in cheek, but it's unwarranted.
Oh, have you read the novel Battle Royale?
Inb4 moving to PRSI...
Just put more restrictions on firearms. The last shooting in Canada was in 2010, and there were no deaths. In fact the USA's list on this article is ridiculously large.
Well it is Oakland.
Still too soon.
There is no single solution to this problem, but, reducing the availability of firearms clearly makes a huge difference in other countries. In addition, many (not all) of such cases involve people who have sought mental health services, which are difficult or impossible for marginally employed people to get access to.
And your point is?
There has been the worst gang violence in Oakland for the past 30 years. This is nothing new and should not surprise anyone.
Amending your constitution would be a good start.
It might seem so... and yet in countries where they keep guns under very close control have far far fewer gun deaths. Funny that.
There is a very simple reason too. Most victims are shot by somebody who was not in fact a criminal - until in an uncharacteristic moment they shot that person/those people. Most victims are shot by somebody who "snapped" and already had access to a gun. Most victims are shot by somebody who is not thinking logically or dispassionately. What makes the shooters dangerous, at that moment, is that they already have easy access to a gun. They are not thinking clearly enough to care whether anyone else has one. They have one and they are going to use it. Period.
Take that gun access away and you buy time. Time for the shooter to get help, time for someone to notice they need help. Time for the shooter to reconsider. Time for riled emotions to settle.
In the USA there are shootings everyday that involve just one or two people. Just about half of those people shot are shot by a family member in their own home, by a gun kept in home (for protection), during a domestic dispute. And just about a quarter more by friends, during an argument.
These mass shootings - as common as they are in the US - are actually rare in relation to the vast number of domestic dispute shootings that are not picked up in the media.
The number of people shot in the US by a person committing another crime (i.e. a crime unrelated to the shooting) is very very small.
All of these statements can be backed up with stats. But I've had this debate enough times here on MR that I can't be bothered to go look them up. You want my stats.... look up gun threads in the MR archives.
Gun ownership is quite high in Canada too, is it not?
a shooting at a religious school by a former student (according to early reports) has probably very little to do with gang violence.
honestly, until more is known about the specifics and the motivations of this guy, not much can be said.
one thing that can be said is that the excessively easy access to weapons together with the culture of violence that permeates this country has probably a lot to do with it (and with the rest of the 'vigilante' morons that scour our streets)
I wanna wear a side-arm.
Road-rage right now is no fun at all.
Got a song for you. The Offspring - Bad Habit
Yes, long guns and shotguns, but handguns are tightly controlled.
I assume that a handgun(s) was used in this instance?
Similar to here in NY at least. Some states are easy to get handguns and/or permits for them.
In what way?
The part about the right to bear arms, probably. Though perhaps re-interpretting that bit to merely make it permissible for the states to raise their own militias would probably work too.
What part about it? Are you suggesting removing the right to bear arms part?
We've been over this, time and again.
Everyone should be entitled to have a single-shot flintlock rifle in their hall closet.
As iJohnHenry said. Only rifles and shotguns. Handguns are near impossible to get, you have to go trough lots of paperwork and people having a police record are automatically denied the right. Also, you can't carry the handgun except at certain moments (driving to the shooting range or the gun shop, basically).