College & High School Shootings: What Now

[ThisYouWillDo]

Better eliminate all cars and motor vehicles too.

In 2002, for example, gun deaths numbered 28+ thousand.
Motorvehicle deaths numbered 43+ thousand...

with drivers of automatics being the worst culprits.

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.

Ozme: I almost wish it were so. It would be good to know what most people think instead of what a few spokespersons claim.

On the other hand, I'm not all that convinced that people wouldn't just parrot what they hear from the current celebrities of the day. After-all, that's why the NRA used Charlton Heston... hell, if Moses says it, it's gotta be true.

So maybe it's a good thing the mob doesn't rule.

But my point was and still is... just because someone loudly proclaims that it's only the gun lobby that impedes the passage of this... well there are huge numbers of non-NRA folk who don't believe we should have gun control.

No argument, and complete agreement with what you say about spokesmen attempting to represent the "will of the majority", whichever point of view they want to promote.

Ozme: It's not about the assault rifles per se... but the 'worry' that the right to bear arms will be eroded. Take away assault rifles and then handguns and then largebore hunting rifles (no elephants in the U.S. ya know) and then any hunting rifle because we raise enough meat on farms and ranches for everyone... and... and... and eventually why do you even need a 'varmint rifle'.

The right to bear arms is an anachronism. As I said, the 13 colonies obtained their freedom two and a half centuries ago, and then occupied or purchased much of the rest of the continent. The American people are under no threat except from their own government, and that represents no threat at all. And I contend that, if your government ever did want to oppress the American people, it would do so despite the fact that so many are armed. In fact, it would probably encourage hot-headed armed extremists to create unrest so that it could step in and impose "law and order" to protect everyone else.

What is a "varmint rifle"?

Ozme: I know it seems a ridiculous arguement... but tell that to my grandpa... but you can't... they took away his guns and then sent him and the family away.

I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.

Ozme: Definitely.

Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?

Why must the answer be gun control. Warbaby offerred up corporal punishment. I could suggest better psychiatric services.

The fact the man used a gun is irrelevant. He was unbalanced, stopped taking his medication.
So what if he used a gun. He could have used a knife or a club, a bat or an axe. He even could have used a car.

In fact... a few years ago someone wigged out and purposely drove his car onto a elementary school campus and killed some children there. He was a psych job... but no one (and I have to admit, I was thinking about this case when I started in about cars, no one suggested we ban cars. It was an automatic. (laffin) But it was also a luxury car. Why would anyone need a luxury car? A car is for transportation.

But if I were to be adamant about this position, you'd say I was flogging the proverbial dead horse. Yet is it really so different than saying gun ownership should be limited, or categorized by the kind of gun? Before you say "intent" I'll remind you of the statistics. More people die to accidental vehicle incidents than purposeful gun incidents. Maybe we should do something about that first?

Citing these kinds of incidents as a need for gun control is about caring more about the issue than the incident.

Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

Furthermore, if a person is spotted as a risk, those services can be utilised before any catastrophe occurs, and maybe avert it. So is part of the answer some kind of psycholgical profiling?

And is that already happening when it comes to buying guns?

mkemse: But he also PASSED all the paperwork needed to get a gun, his stopping his medication etc is not relivent here, because he went through all the proper steps on paper work, his back ground checked came back all clear ...

I don't know what those checks entailed, but it does indicate that all forms of checking are susceptible to failure at key times. Therefore, even with psychological profiling as a preventative, gun-controls remain desirable.


You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

[mkemse]

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.



No argument, and complete agreement with what you say about spokesmen attempting to represent the "will of the majority", whichever point of view they want to promote.



The right to bear arms is an anachronism. As I said, the 13 colonies obtained their freedom two and a half centuries ago, and then occupied or purchased much of the rest of the continent. The American people are under no threat except from their own government, and that represents no threat at all. And I contend that, if your government ever did want to oppress the American people, it would do so despite the fact that so many are armed. In fact, it would probably encourage hot-headed armed extremists to create unrest so that it could step in and impose "law and order" to protect everyone else.

What is a "varmint rifle"?



I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.



Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?



Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

Furthermore, if a person is spotted as a risk, those services can be utilised before any catastrophe occurs, and maybe avert it. So is part of the answer some kind of psycholgical profiling?

And is that already happening when it comes to buying guns?




I don't know what those checks entailed, but it does indicate that all forms of checking are susceptible to failure at key times. Therefore, even with psychological profiling as a preventative, gun-controls remain desirable.


You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

First unless it was not directed at me I never ever suggested guns be banned only assult rifles to the gennral public they have no use with the general public becauee those type weapons are designed for military use not general public use, what use would you have personal to own a full automatic assault rifle, and do not just say the right to bear arm,s assault rifle in the hands of private citizens is as dangerous as it gets
My only objection to gun owership private gun owner ship is assaulr rifle and assault hand guns, if someone wants to own a hand gun, a regular hand gun i have no issue with it if someone wants to own a rifle for hunting or to protect their family let them have one

if someone wantsa to own a full automatic assault rifle or a simialr in a hand gun, yes i have a HUGE issue with that why does anyoneneed a rifle for private usethat fire 80 roundsa second to hunt?? a stanard rifle and or hand gun for hunting or protecting ones family is all they need, you can ban assualt riflesand similar hand gund with ut aking away anyonesright to bear arms

[Ozme52]

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.

Hey. I introduced the statistics. YOU asked about the original intent of cars. I pointed out the first cars were war chariots (by definition) I didn't bring any chariot statistics, I just answered your question as to the original intent of cars.

So don't act like I started the chariot conversation. I was making a point that there are things in our lives far more dangerous than guns. You wanted to bring the intention of the thing into play... so I pointed out cars were once pure weapons.

BTW, You should read the Iliad too. (Or again.) It has a lot of good theological perspective too.

The right to bear arms is an anachronism.

So you think... but you have to grow up in the US to understand the emotions behind the issues. I'm sure there are anachronisms you enjoy in your country that many people treasure... and far be it for me to say it's out of date... a royal family for example.

What is a "varmint rifle"?

Main Entry: var·mint
Pronunciation: \ˈvär-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of vermin
Date: circa 1539
1: an animal considered a pest; specifically : one classed as vermin and unprotected by game law
2: a contemptible person : rascal; broadly : person, fellow

A gun for eliminating pests as defined in the first definition.

I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.

The issue is that they gave up their guns... and later gave up their liberty and their lives. Perhaps if they'd still had their guns... their oppressors wouldn't have been so successful.

Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?

Usually. I guess what I really should do is walk away because EVERY thread he starts he wants to use solely as a political stump. He even started one today and has stated the bounds of the conversation. His right I guess... but he'd be getting his ass reamed on a regular basis if he were doing it in a political forum instead of this supposedly sexual forum. We're much more polite.

I guess I forgot where I was...

Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

Geeze, Why do you always go to the extreme!! Who said lashing? Warbaby is in favor of a good spanking for misbehaving children. Maybe they'd have a better understanding of bad behavior begets harsh consequences. Because children who NEVER face some form of penultimate punishment from their parents just wear their parents down until they give up.

And then they go through life thinking they can do whatever they please without consequence.

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

NO!! The question was what could be done to prevent the incident. That is what both Warbaby and I were answering. You obviously think we're talking about how to deal with it after the fact...

I hate having to defend myself against things I didn't say.

You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

My gun/car comment was to point out that, in my opinion, the gun is not the problem. People are. But that argument is always discounted by gun control enthusiasts in their zeal to take away my rights.

If half the effort and money that goes into the gun control lobby (which rarely gets defamed the way you like to defame the gun rights lobby) maybe there'd be more progress in the field of detecting psychotic behavior. (See!! I can make inane comments with the best of them.)

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

As I pointed out earlier, you don't understand the issue. What would happen? You would turn, literally, a hundred million law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight. They wouldn't turn in their guns.