10 people shot dead in Texas

Graces7

So, and I realise I may have missed this in the thread, how can a student get a gun into school so easily after all the shootings? Cannot remember which but the last time school security was mentioned it was woefully inadequate . A simply bag search?

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

You don't live in America you don't get it. I'm sorry but it's just that simple.

Work there a considerable amount of time. What does he not get?

Greysquirel09

pjohnson wrote: »

Ahahahahaha what nonsense told you this?

Because when I lived there, I, like you was uninformed and was often filled full of ****e from the internet so when I was receiving medical care and was going through the system I ASKED the people in the hospital how much my treatment would be then I thought wow nurse what happens if I don't health insurance how could I ever afford this?? And she proceeded to inform me of what happens in such cases. Are you guys honestly that stupid to think that in the USA you are go to the hospital and they close the door on you if you have no insurance?? So you tell me what happens in your understanding of American healthcare?

Greysquirel09

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Because when I lived there, I, like you was uninformed and was often filled full of ****e from the internet so when I was receiving medical care and was going through the system I ASKED the people in the hospital how much my treatment would be then I thought wow nurse what happens if I don't health insurance how could I ever afford this?? And she proceeded to inform me of what happens in such cases. Are you guys honestly that stupid to think that in the USA you are go to the hospital and they close the door on you if you have no insurance?? So you tell me what happens in your understanding of American healthcare?

You get treated and then you file for bankruptcy.

Even if you have insurance, you still have to tell the paramedic which hospitals you're covered in. Getting taken to the wrong one, or being treated an out-of-network doctor while in the right one, could ruin you financially.

Madd Finn

Silane wrote: »

It blows my mind that Irish people think they can tell Americans what to do, when alcohol in Ireland kills more people per capita then guns murders in America. It also costs our economy massive amounts in lost productivity and the burden on the emergency services is massive. It's also probably a factor in most murders here, and then there's the domestic and sexual abuse that also goes along with it.

But hey, not everybody abuses alcohol here, most people use it responsibly, plus its just part of our culture, so it's grand. (Where have we heard that before?)

Plenty of winos, pissheads, bowzies, boozers, lushes, alcos, dipsos, etc etc in America too. Do you think Alcohol doesn't kill anybody there?

For comparison, you would have to compare the domestic violence, heart-disease instances, drunk driving deaths, and all manner of other things between Ireland and a country with extremely strict regulation of alcohol. If you know any.

There's a few in the Middle East. Do you want us to be like them? Say it out loud if you do. It's your right.

splinter65

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

No one is refused medical care in the United States will you get that into your head. They get bills of many thousands of dollars which are written off by the hospitals or by government insurance now please stop trying to continue this ridiculous argument and get back on topic. Burning rubbish in barrels you actually have me laughing you must be watching either Rocky or Trading places. Please get back on topic you are talking nonsense.

This is how easily people in Ireland on the left are brainwashed.
They actually believe that it the US if you are in the throws of a heart attack or are in a car crash that the paramedics who come to your assistance that they will refuse to treat you if you can’t produce health insurance.
It’s laughable.

BattleCorp

RustyNut wrote: »

As individuals yes but as a society no.

How many kids lives would be saved annually if it was mandatory for gun owners to keep their guns securely locked and ammunition stored separately.

How many toddlers have shot toddlers because someone feels the need to exercise their "right" to keep a loaded firearm within reach at all times.

Gun owners rights seem to trump children's rights, or that's how it seems to me anyway.

Isn't society made up of individuals?

I agree with you to a point. Yes, I believe that guns should be safely locked away when not in use. But as long as you have the ability to possess guns for self defence, it's not practical to lock up the guns and bullets seperately as you may need to access them quickly should your life be under threat.

There is too much carelessness regarding firearms in the US. Guns should never be left where kids can get near them.

When you say that gun owner's rights trump children's rights, it isn't as simple as that. Guns are a right in America. They are part of their DNA. For a lot of people (millions and millions), the removal of guns would be akin to the removal of some of our civil rights, such as the right to freedom of religion. If I was a responsible law abiding gun owner in America, I would feel hard done by if I had to give up my guns because of something someone else did. It's not that I don't value the lives of children, it's the fact that children would be no safer by me giving up my guns. You might think I'm comming across as heartless but I'd be considerately more moderate than your average American gun owner.

Graces7

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You've clearly no idea how the US healthcare system works. Thank god for Ireland's public healthcare system.

You're embarrassing yourself here. Go read a book before replying.

REALLY? Our public healthcare is a joke. the US is far more geared to insurance meds than we are and that works.
But to praise the public health care here? I have literally the scars to prove else.

Bubbaclaus

Graces7 wrote: »

REALLY? Our public healthcare is a joke. the US is far more geared to insurance meds than we are and that works.
But to praise the public health care here? I have literally the scars to prove else.

I'm not praising it. I'm saying it's great we have a public health system here. In the US you'd get crippled financially and have to file for bankruptcy. But apparently bankruptcy is fine for some posters on here and equates to a simple "writing off". It's a laughable lack of understanding, coming from a person that claims to understand because they "asked a nurse". I assume she's qualified in bankruptcy law alright.

Lol

Graces7

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm not praising it. I'm saying it's great we have a public health system here. In the US you'd get crippled financially and have to file for bankruptcy. But apparently bankruptcy is fine for some posters on here and equates to a simple "writing off". It's a laughable lack of understanding, coming from a person that claims to understand because they "asked a nurse". I assume she's qualified in bankruptcy law alright.

Lol

Read and learn!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

Capt'n Midnight

Graces7 wrote: »

So, and I realise I may have missed this in the thread, how can a student get a gun into school so easily after all the shootings? Cannot remember which but the last time school security was mentioned it was woefully inadequate . A simply bag search?

Maybe it's because the culture, and laws, allow carry unless expressly prohibited.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44158099

university policy that prohibited students, professors and employees from carrying "lethal weapons" on campus - but allows "guests" to possess them on school grounds (but not in buildings).

...
Now that I graduated from @KentState, I can finally arm myself on campus. I should have been able to do so as a student- especially since 4 unarmed students were shot and killed by the government on this campus.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Isn't society made up of individuals?

I agree with you to a point. Yes, I believe that guns should be safely locked away when not in use. But as long as you have the ability to possess guns for self defence, it's not practical to lock up the guns and bullets seperately as you may need to access them quickly should your life be under threat.

There is too much carelessness regarding firearms in the US. Guns should never be left where kids can get near them.

When you say that gun owner's rights trump children's rights, it isn't as simple as that. Guns are a right in America. They are part of their DNA. For a lot of people (millions and millions), the removal of guns would be akin to the removal of some of our civil rights, such as the right to freedom of religion. If I was a responsible law abiding gun owner in America, I would feel hard done by if I had to give up my guns because of something someone else did. It's not that I don't value the lives of children, it's the fact that children would be no safer by me giving up my guns. You might think I'm comming across as heartless but I'd be considerately more moderate than your average American gun owner.

As you mentioned the average US gun owner is nutty compared to your posts so credit where it's due.

However you seem to have a problem with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. You realise plenty of these laws exist already? Why should speeding laws apply to me if I can drive safely at speed? Why can't I carry a knife in London just because other people stab people? Why should I be affected by drink driving legislation if I can have one or two and drive safely?

Greysquirel09

splinter65 wrote: »

This is how easily people in Ireland on the left are brainwashed.
They actually believe that it the US if you are in the throws of a heart attack or are in a car crash that the paramedics who come to your assistance that they will refuse to treat you if you can’t produce health insurance.
It’s laughable.

I know it's amazing the crap people will believe.

Greysquirel09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You get treated and then you file for bankruptcy.

Even if you have insurance, you still have to tell the paramedic which hospitals you're covered in. Getting taken to the wrong one, or being treated an out-of-network doctor while in the right one, could ruin you financially.

God where are you getting this from seriously.

steddyeddy

Graces7 wrote: »

Read and learn!

Ahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

Or read a Harvard study that shows 45,000 people a year die as a result of no health insurance in America. Not treating certain individuals due to finances also allows them to act as a host for mutating diseases. In other words if you don't treat TB victims you allow the developmemt of untreatable TB strains as is already happening. Right wing views go hand in hand with science ignorance yet again.

pjohnson

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Because when I lived there, I, like you was uninformed and was often filled full of ****e from the internet so when I was receiving medical care and was going through the system I ASKED the people in the hospital how much my treatment would be then I thought wow nurse what happens if I don't health insurance how could I ever afford this?? And she proceeded to inform me of what happens in such cases. Are you guys honestly that stupid to think that in the USA you are go to the hospital and they close the door on you if you have no insurance?? So you tell me what happens in your understanding of American healthcare?

Its nothing to do with internet. Its to do with actual education. No can honestly think Ameeica's health system is a success.

pjohnson

Graces7 wrote: »

Read and learn!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

Yep. No budget cuts coming for medicare and medicaid, no possible changes in 8 years.

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

God where are you getting this from seriously.

Harvard: news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

I know it's not a bastion of facts like your posts but sure give it a read.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

As you mentioned the average US gun owner is nutty compared to your posts so credit where it's due.

However you seem to have a problem with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. You realise plenty of these laws exist already? Why should speeding laws apply to me if I can drive safely at speed? Why can't I carry a knife in London just because other people stab people? Why should I be affected by drink driving legislation if I can have one or two and drive safely?

Can you tell me which laws I have a problem with? I don't remember complaining about any laws. I have absolutely no problem with laws designed to protect society if they are sensible and well thought out.

I'm not campaigning for the right to have a firearm for self defence. I'm just stating that you can't effectively lock up your guns in one place and have the bullets in another place and still be able to rely on the gun for self defence. I'm quite happy to keep my guns in my legally required safes here in Ireland as we aren't allowed guns for self defence.

As a matter of interest are you equating a responsible law abiding gun owner with a drink driver? Because one is legal and the other is not.

pjohnson

splinter65 wrote: »

This is how easily people in Ireland on the left are brainwashed.
They actually believe that it the US if you are in the throws of a heart attack or are in a car crash that the paramedics who come to your assistance that they will refuse to treat you if you can’t produce health insurance.
It’s laughable.

Nah they will treat you of course. The funny part about the great American system is that uninsured will need to be in a serious state of illness to recieve the care they need.

This means people require either MORE "normal" level healthcare for longer (thus more expensive), OR a stronger level of healthcare for a normal treatment period (more expensive drugs). So that makes the treatments far more costly.

And thats where if its coronary disease or renal disease or cancer related this expensive treatment will be LESS effective due to the advanced nature of the disease. America is one of the worst healthcare services in the world (better than Azerbaijan and Russia) at least. They overspend for a reduced life expectancy. They are a joke.

wes

Reading that one of the victims was his ex- girlfriend. I think domestic violois one of the biggest commonalities amongst mass shooters.

Bubbaclaus

Graces7 wrote: »

Read and learn!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/10067521/how-does-us-healthcare-work Tead

What am I supposed to learn? That article agrees with what I'm saying.

A person goes into medical bankruptcy every minute in the US. Which effects their credit rating for 10 years so will struggle to get any loans for 10 years, will struggle to rent places that do credit checks and will lose a large chunk of their assets.

Greysquirel09

steddyeddy wrote: »

Harvard: news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

I know it's not a bastion of facts like your posts but sure give it a read.

An article from a decade ago. Sit down.

Greysquirel09

pjohnson wrote: »

Nah they will treat you of course. The funny part about the great American system is that uninsured will need to be in a serious state of illness to recieve the care they need.

This means people require either MORE "normal" level healthcare for longer (thus more expensive), OR a stronger level of healthcare for a normal treatment period (more expensive drugs). So that makes the treatments far more costly.

And thats where if its coronary disease or renal disease or cancer related this expensive treatment will be LESS effective due to the advanced nature of the disease. America is one of the worst healthcare services in the world (better than Azerbaijan and Russia) at least. They overspend for a reduced life expectancy. They are a joke.

More false nonsense. Back on topic please.

Squirrel, stop acting like a condescending arse.

Greysquirel09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Squirrel, stop acting like a condescending arse.

We've established no one has a clue about US health insurance in this thread, myself included it seems. It's about a school shooting so let's take it back there is all I'm saying.

Manic Moran

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

An article from a decade ago. Sit down.

In fairness, it's not saying that they are dying because the ambulance refused to take them, it's because they are not getting routine preventative care in the first place, which could detect problems before they became life-enders. It is a definite issue which should be solved.

However you seem to have a problem with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. You realise plenty of these laws exist already? Why should speeding laws apply to me if I can drive safely at speed? Why can't I carry a knife in London just because other people stab people? Why should I be affected by drink driving legislation if I can have one or two and drive safely?

Most folks have problems with laws designed to protect society at the expense of civil liberties. It's why the American Civil Liberties Union is such a big deal here. Why the motto of New Hampshire is "Live free or die". And so on.

Yes, the law prohibits speeding. How fast can your car go? Even a humble Ford Fiesta, let alone a Mercedes AMG or something. You may not carry a knife around in London, yet I seem to recall London stabbing rates being in the news recently.

Before proposing a prohibition or restriction on something, I submit that any law should pass some basic tests. 1) Will it, if applied, achieve the desired result? 2) Is it enforceable to ensure it is applied? 3) Will the expected benefit outweigh any potential downsides?

Let us stipulate to the first one. That if all firearms were prohibited, or at least, that if no firearms would be found 'on the streets', as it were, the US's murder rate to firearms (if not the murder rate period) would go down. I have no problem with that part of the equation.

The issues come with 2 and 3. The big one. It's not enforceable. Licensing/security regimens such as Ireland has cannot be enforced. Maybe we could get to something like Czech standards. They can't be enacted in the first place due to the various Federal and State constitutional provisions, and even if they were somehow removed from the equation, the Fourth Amendment will prohibit checks to ensure that none of the 200 million-plus guns are kept. The Fourth is going to be vigorously defended by everyone. We're kindof fond of that one.

For the same reason, "stop-and-frisk" checks are controversial at best, and very difficult to legally carry out in practice. In the 20 years, nearly, I've owned a pistol, not once has a police officer checked to see if I'm carrying it around with me. As London has discovered, they may prohibit knives in circulation, but they can't stop them. Prohibitions against firearms by students (in terms of ownership, carriage, or bringing onto school property) do seem to be having limited effectiveness thus far.

Thirdly, the cost/benefit analysis, which few people seem here to consider. Firearms do have a legitimate purpose in US society, varying from animal control to personal self defense, and their use for such is not infrequent. This could, perhaps be balanced out against the first criterion, but given the big issue of #2, the first criterion has no weight.

So, given that, yes, we do point at the fact that there are speed limits, and that you can't carry knives around in London, and observe that this is precisely why wishing ineffective restrictions on firearms is... well..ineffective.

As a result, we would prefer to focus on other things, such as the fame aspect, or active protection measures.

As to the children killed number, the source is this document here. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486

Over half are homicides, a third suicides. These aren't normally children being gunned down on the way to school, note the section about 2/3 down where it says that most of the homicide victims were killed as parts of gang warfare, drug crime, and other such activity where there is a high mortality rate, and nobody checks that you're over 18 before they let you in. Not that the other deaths aren't tragic, but I wanted to be sure you all had the correct image of who is usually getting killed.

pjohnson

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

More false nonsense. Back on topic please.

Yep good boy stop pretending you undertand healthcare. Back to the greatness of guns.

ManicMoran (who does reside in America) was able to agree that the lack of preventative care is a issue.

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

An article from a decade ago. Sit down.

You're confusing article with study. Have the findings been disproved since?

evolving_doors

Maybe the kids just lack some basic military training!

Greysquirel09

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're confusing article with study. Have the findings been disproved since?

Where did you find that article?

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Where did you find that article?

Are you OK? Your posts are mostly unconnected to the posts you're quoting.

steddyeddy

evolving_doors wrote: »

Maybe the kids just lack some basic military training!

I think the people defending gun laws in America need to be laughed at following this article.

Greysquirel09

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you OK? Your posts are mostly unconnected to the posts you're quoting.

You googled US deaths caused by lack of health insurance and up came that Harvard study first hit. A 10 year old study. You were getting found out with your lack of knowledge and quoted a Harvard article you were unaware of till you googled 10 mins prior. Pretty pathetic.

pjohnson

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

You googled US deaths caused by lack of health insurance and up came that Harvard study first hit. A 10 year old study. You were getting found out with your lack of knowledge and quoted a Harvard article you were unaware of till you googled 10 mins prior. Pretty pathetic.

Well this argument provides adequate support to your claim America is great.

greencap

They see guns as toys.


They'll lie, and digress about all kinds of shyte.

But never just admit they just like acting the clown with things that go bangbangbang.


muh 2nd amendment, muh 2nd amendment. yeah its a fcking amendment. a.k.a a change.

you need a 40 rd weapon for what exactly.

RiderOnTheStorm

More Americans are killed by toddlers each year (accidentally shooting parent) than by terrorists....

News, statistics and logic wont change a thing until the NRA loose clout.

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

You googled US deaths caused by lack of health insurance and up came that Harvard study first hit. A 10 year old study. You were getting found out with your lack of knowledge and quoted a Harvard article you were unaware of till you googled 10 mins prior. Pretty pathetic.

I havent the energy to read beyond your first sentence. They're all pretty pointless in this debate.

Hitman3000

I trust everyone has posted "thoughts and prayers" by now.

Hitman3000

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

More Americans are killed by toddlers each year (accidentally shooting parent) than by terrorists....

If only the parent had a gun to shot those terrorist toddlers...oh wait.

Hitman3000

Seriously how can anyone post on these threads in a serious manner. Terrible kids murdered terrorised etc etc, but nothing changes . Insults traded back and forth. The good thing is I get to comment from a position where my kids are not at risk form this crap as I live in Europe. My brother however is a cop in L.A. with 3 kids different attitude. Sorry for saying this but the 2nd amendment is the reason the f**ktards experience this on a regular basis.

Manic Moran

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Sorry for saying this but the 2nd amendment is the reason the f**ktards experience this on a regular basis.

We have had 2A for over two centuries. It hasn’t changed. Indeed, in recent years, fewer people have experience with firearms, and restrictions have been greater: We haven’t always been prohibited from bringing guns to school, it used to be not uncommon.

Few people seem to be asking why, despite the supposed reduction in access to firearms, the number of spree shootings are going up. Psychologists are, but since they prefer to focus on things like motivation instead of the guns, they don’t get as much press.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-dreams/

Many of our insights have come from analyzing the violent fantasies of adolescent shooters. These imaginings take root in a desperate mind that yearns for recognition. Often these young assassins are inspired by examples set by previous shooters. The fantasies typically intensify over a number of years before they are acted on. [...]
Thus, the media attention showered on previous school shooters such as the Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold often appeals greatly to would-be copycats, because the publicity may pass for esteem in their minds.[...] Schools are a natural target because adolescents experience the worst slights in school. Two months before his rampage in Germany, Bosse wrote in his diary, "Imagine that you're standing in your old school and that your trench coat conceals all of your tools of righteousness, and then you throw the first Molotov cocktail, the first bomb. You are sending the most hated place in the world to Hell!"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

School shootings are a modern phenomenon. There were scattered instances of gunmen or bombers attacking schools in the years before Barry Loukaitis, but they were lower profile.
But what if the way to explain the school-shooting epidemic is to go back and use the Granovetterian model—to think of it as a slow-motion, ever-evolving riot, in which each new participant’s action makes sense in reaction to and in combination with those who came before?[...]
Larkin looked at the twelve major school shootings in the United States in the eight years after Columbine, and he found that in eight of those subsequent cases the shooters made explicit reference to Harris and Klebold. Of the eleven school shootings outside the United States between 1999 and 2007, Larkin says six were plainly versions of Columbine; of the eleven cases of thwarted shootings in the same period, Larkin says all were Columbine-inspired.
Along the same lines, the sociologist Nathalie E. Paton has analyzed the online videos created by post-Columbine shooters and found a recurring set of stylized images: a moment where the killer points his gun at the camera, then at his own temple, and then spreads his arms wide with a gun in each hand; the closeup; the wave goodbye at the end. “School shooters explicitly name or represent each other,”

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/americas-mass-shooting-epidemic-contagious/545078/

But according to a 2015 paper out of Arizona State University, “Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings,” there are some data that mass shootings often occur in bunches, which indicates that they “infect” new potential murderers, not unlike a disease. “We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past,” the authors wrote. Suicide and terrorism, too, have been found to be likewise contagious.[...]
Diseases spread among individuals, but the contagion of mass shootings seems to spread through broadcast media. In an interview with The Atlantic in 2015, Sherry Towers, the ASU paper’s lead author, hypothesized that television, radio, and other media exposure might be the vectors through which one mass shooting infects the next perpetrator. Like a commercial, each event’s extraordinary coverage offers accidental advertising for depravity. One reason why mass-media coverage of shootings might inspire more shootings is that public glorification inspires some mass murderers.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats/

Evidence amassed by the FBI and other threat assessment experts shows that perpetrators and plotters look to past attacks both for inspiration and operational details, in hopes of causing even greater carnage. Would-be attackers frequently emulate the Columbine massacre; one high-level law enforcement agent told me that he’s encountered dozens of students around the country who say they admire the Columbine killers
[...]
The media faces a growing challenge in how its content is spread and recycled. When I asked various law enforcement and forensic psychology experts what might explain America’s rising tide of gun rampages, I heard the same two words over and over: social media

There is a good ten or fifteen minutes of reading in those links if anyone actually cares about -why- these things are happening. Absolutely, access to firearms makes things easier for those who feel slighted or want a place in the world to get their name in the news or make a statement, but they are not the root cause. The increase in spree shootings, coupled with decrease in firearms access and an increase in mass media, does point a very strong indicator in the direction of media as a line of attack.

The last article makes a number of suggestions.

Report on the perpetrator forensically and with dispassionate language. Avoid terms like “lone wolf” and “school shooter,” which may carry cachet with young men aspiring to attack. Instead use language such as “perpetrator,” “lone act of terrorism,” and “act of mass murder.”
Keep the perpetrator’s name out of headlines. Rarely, if ever, will a generic reference to him in a headline be any less practical.
Minimize use of the perpetrator’s name. When it isn’t necessary to repeat it, don’t. And don’t include middle names gratuitously, a common practice for distinguishing criminal suspects from others of the same name, but which can otherwise lend a false sense of their importance.
Minimize use of images of the perpetrator. This is especially important both in terms of aspiring copycats’ desire for fame, and the psychology of individuals who may be vulnerable to identifying with mass shooters.
Avoid using “pseudocommando” or other posed photos of the perpetrator. Such self-styled images are the ones they hope will get publicity. These should be avoided especially after the images are outdated, such as showing the Aurora killer again with his “Joker” hair during his trial three years later, when he was heavier and wore glasses and a beard.
Avoid publishing the perpetrators’ videos or manifestos except when clearly valuable to the reporting. Instead, paraphrase, cite sparingly, and provide analysis. The guiding question here may be: Is this evidence already easily accessible online? If so, is there a genuine reason to reproduce it in full and spread it, other than to generate page views?
Don’t fixate on body counts. Would-be attackers are keeping score too—and many want to outdo their predecessors.

Not only do these focus on a root catalyst, they can be easily implemented without significantly affecting anyone’s legal rights, or detrimental countereffects. In the past ten pages, I can recall exactly one post commenting on this part of the phenomenon. The follow-on question is, if this can be easily implemented, and it can, why isn’t anyone doing it? The experts say it’s an issue. I don’t know anyone who would be against it. Whilst the argument over 2A and the State analogues continues, why not pass a code on this in the meantime? Is it just not a vote-getter? Are the media too concerned with their ratings?

Instead, the reaction has been to focus as a solution that which has not changed: The firearms. Improvements can be made in the firearms regimen, in the way we teach children to interact with each other, and, most easily, quickly and likely effectively, the way we put these incidents in the culture to begin with.

Sponge25

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Breaking on BBC.

Another High school shooting by the looks of it.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-44173954

How many more will it take before they reaxminne their gun policies?

Never, there will be thousands of deaths if they try to revoke the second amendment.

kildare lad

Its just a vicious cycle, it'll never change. Imagine having to worry about your kids getting shot going to school, and their politicians doing nothing about it. Ive said it before , America has some of the most dumbest, ignorant, backward people in the developed world. They even elected two of the last three presidents who'd fit into that category. You only have to watch Donald Trump speak at a rally, and all the idiots hollering and cheering at every incoherent, bumbling statement he comes out with.

Graces7

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Maybe it's because the culture, and laws, allow carry unless expressly prohibited.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44158099

for schoolkids? One of the guns was not his.

So no.

So he was able to simply carry the two guns in hidden under a coat? A school child? And no one checked?

That is crazy, given the number of school shootings.

https://www.propublica.org/article/nyc-school-children-face-airport-style-security-screening-every-day

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school-metal-detectors/

So what went wrong in Texas?

sarcasticus magnificus

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

steddyeddy

kildare lad wrote: »

Its just a vicious cycle, it'll never change. Imagine having to worry about your kids getting shot going to school, and their politicians doing nothing about it. Ive said it before , America has some of the most dumbest, ignorant, backward people in the developed world. They even elected two of the last three presidents who'd fit into that category. You only have to watch Donald Trump speak at a rally, and all the idiots hollering and cheering at every incoherent, bumbling statement he comes out with.

Donald even said he loves uneducated people. They responded by putting him into office.

2011

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

This type of carnage will continue until you remove the one common denominator - Guns.

Great idea.
One question though: How??

I'm afraid that is like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
There are simply too many guns in circulation in the US.

Every time there is a shooting incident such as this guns sales soar because people worry that certain types of firearms will be banned so they want to stock up just in case.

Speaking as a keen target shooter, I don't agree with many aspects of gun laws in the US. However I don't think that the issues they have are simply due to the availability of firearms. Many other countries have high gun ownership and don't have these issues. These countries include Norway, Switzerland and Canada. I don't know what the solution is, but removing guns from the equation with the best will in the world simply isn't an option.

Many would be surprised what can be legally owned by civilians in many countries, for example I know of more than one AR15 licensed in the Republic of Ireland.

dr.fuzzenstein

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

So you are saying that people are the problem and I would tend to agree.
America is the most violent place in the developed world.
Would you not agree that flooding a population of violent psychopaths with guns is a bad idea?
Americans are quite apparently too childish and volatile to be given guns.

steddyeddy

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

If that's true you favor no gun control?