School Shootings

[tesIII]

Nobody likes to talk about them. It's no wonder. Some of us are desensitized and don't want to feel bad about not caring. Others of us are oversensitized and don't want to burst into tears in public. A few of us, no doubt, have fantasized about shooting up our school on one or more occasions.

 

And how many of us (despite being, for the most part, marginalized people ourselves), have, at some point in our lives, chosen to avoid having to deal with a socially inept, difficult-to-like, or difficult-to-understand person whose mental health is slowly unhinging as e becomes trapped inside emself, unable to reach out to others and un-reached out to?

 

It seems that one of the victims, a MIDDLE SCHOOL boy from CA, was gay and possibly trans. His killer has been charged with a hate crime.

 

I don't really want to talk about it either. So I'll keep it short.

1: I read an interesting article from a feminist perspective... sorry, forgot the author. It pointed out that serial killings and school shootings are carried out most often by far by America's least marginalized class: middle-class white males (only about 25-30% of our population, so it's not statistics.) She proposed that several factors, including a romanticization of the act of lashing out and saying f**K the world, an upbringing emphasizing that a man must deal with problems in a man's way, and a peer culture of destructive apathy, are causing acts of random violence by people with the least right to seek revenge on society.

2: The way I personally deal with the killings is to say that I await, with contempt but without fear, the day that random violence takes my life. But I would rather it not merely ruin my life, it must take it. I want to honestly be able to say that dying (passively) is the appropriate outcome of having to live in a world where people must destroy each others' happiness for kicks.

[Graeme]

Ouch! :wacko: Shootings in Australia are rare, very rare, but I have to say that the media here must be becoming desensitised, too, because I haven't seen reports on this in our newspapers.

[Tiger]

Ouch! :wacko: Shootings in Australia are rare, very rare, but I have to say that the media here must be becoming desensitised, too, because I haven't seen reports on this in our newspapers.

That's probably because guns have been banned. I heard about why. The man responsible perpetrated the largest body count ever for a spree killer. It's such a shame. Guns aren't all bad in the hands of responsible citizens. It's the nutters who make it bad for everyone else.

[JamesSavik]

Guns aren't all bad in the hands of responsible citizens. It's the nutters who make it bad for everyone else.

 

For a school shooting to happen, laws have already been broken. Minors aren't supposed to have guns at all or under a very narrow range of circumstances.

 

In most past shooting incidents, guns were taken from the home or the home of a relative which is at least negligence on the part of parents or grandparents.

 

The Columbine shooters purchased their weapons on the street.

 

In all of these cases laws were broken and/or guns were not secured by their owners as required by law.

 

No laws, other than a complete ban would have prevented any of the shooting incidents because once someone has made up their mind to pull the trigger (or commit murder), a bunch of class A misdemeanors don't mean squat.

 

If a person is intent on committing murder there are plenty of other "legal" weapons or makeshift weapons that will do the job just fine. Ice picks, razors, garrotes, knives, machetes, axes can be purchased anytime, anywhere by anyone with no waiting period no questions asked.

 

If you want to do something legally to prevent these crimes, I would suggest an expedited trial and very public and televised execution. Put the bastard into a giant blender feet first so the public can watch their expression.

 

Most of these damned things are media driven. Instead of making the little sh*ts famous, show them lead to their death crying and wetting themselves like the little b*tches that they really are. Deal with it with absolute brutality instead of a media circus and it will end. period.

[YaP]

I think that weapons are so easily accessible in the US is one (but of course not the only) reason why this happens so often in the US. Its much harder to get hold of a gun here, and we have much less shootings here - not only in schools, but in general.

I don't think the brutal "eye for eye" approach would help at all to prevent shootings. Answering violence with violence never helps. Quite contrary - a society that openly uses violence teaches that it is OK to use violence, and actually encourages brutality.

There is a reason why some kids flip out and have such a low barrier to use violence. There have to be signs that a kid may go ballistic before it actually happens. If the social environment (parents, friends...) care enough to pick up those signs, i think there would be a good chance to stop it from happening.

[Menzoberranzen]

Not to be trite, but guns don't kill people; people do. Like James said, if you want to kill someone, a machete works just as well as a gun.

[ashessnow]

Not to be trite, but guns don't kill people; people do.

Yes, but the gun helps don't cha think?

[FrenchCanadian]

Yes, but the gun helps don't cha think?

 

It do helps but if someone want to kill someone, really want, he'll do it.

 

Alright, directly about the school shooting thing. I live in montreal. For those who doesn't know doesn't know there has been 3 school Shootings in montreal since 1989.

 

Dec 6, 1989- Ecole polytechnique engineering school (14 women death, 14 injured; the guy was targeting women)

Aug. 24, 1992-Concordia university (4 slain professors, one injurded; the shooter was also a teacher here)

Sept 13, 2006- Dawson's College (1 killed; 19 injured)

 

The shooting at the polytechnique University set the ground for the gun control law that we currently have now. Some will say that it's not working, some will say that it's because of it that there's not more event like those. But for the case of the Dawson shooter, all his firearm were legally purchased and registered under the gun control law.

 

I remember perfectly well the Dawson shooting. I was still at work at an hospital and I was on a break outside near where the ambulance are parked. when it happened, I heard it on the cb radio they called in every ambulance on the spot saying that there was a shooting. only a couple of hours after that, I had to go to class, ConU is about 2 blocks away from Dawson, our student union were welcoming the dawson's student for counselling.

[YaP]

Of course it is the person who pulls the trigger that does the killing, not the gun...

As i said before, i don't think that the (compared to other countries) "easy" access to guns is the sole reason for the shootings. There is a reason why people cross the line and get violent like that. If they don't have access to guns, it wouldn't end in a shooting, but might still end in violence, like stabbing (although i think it takes far more to kill someone with a knife - its much more "personal" than pulling a trigger, you have to get in much closer contact to the victim...).

 

Having tougher gun control laws like in Canada, or over here, at least seems to reduce the number of shootings, so IMHO it's not a bad idea. I personally don't see a reason why "normal" people need a gun anyway - i am happy to leave that privilege to the military and the police etc.

 

But in order to stop the violence, we have to find out what makes people go ballistic in the first place, and work on that.

[JamesSavik]

If they don't have access to guns, it wouldn't end in a shooting, but might still end in violence, like stabbing (although i think it takes far more to kill someone with a knife - its much more "personal" than pulling a trigger, you have to get in much closer contact to the victim...).

 

Having tougher gun control laws like in Canada, or over here, at least seems to reduce the number of shootings, so IMHO it's not a bad idea.

 

 

Germany has Draconian gun control laws and the dubious distinction of having the single most lethal school shooting rampage on record.

 

18 dead in German school shooting (BBC 4/26/2002)

 

I believe that the problem with this phenomenon in the US is the percieved disconnect between the crime and the punishment. When a school shooting happens, it's wall-to-wall coverage for days. Perp and victims alike are profiled. The perp has instant celeberity status. The trial will probably take about a year or longer when the shootings have become very old news and rarely get any media coverage. Some stupid individuals, and we've got plenty of them, seem to interpret this as there is no punishment.

 

I suggested a very public and brutal punishment for these incident:

 

I would suggest an expedited trial and very public and televised execution. Put the bastard into a giant blender feet first so the public can watch their expression.

 

Most of these damned things are media driven. Instead of making the little sh*ts famous, show them lead to their death crying and wetting themselves like the little b*tches that they really are. Deal with it with absolute brutality instead of a media circus and it will end. period.

 

This eliminates the apparent disconnect between the crime and punishment. It also prevents the romanticism of shooter as a heroic figure that is fighting for something and shows them as they truly are: sniveling little cowards.

 

Do it this way and I guarantee that it will be the end of school shootings.

 

Continuing to treat school shootings as media events is a sure way to inspire more of them.

[YaP]

If you want to do something legally to prevent these crimes, I would suggest an expedited trial and very public and televised execution. Put the bastard into a giant blender feet first so the public can watch their expression.

 

Most of these damned things are media driven. Instead of making the little sh*ts famous, show them lead to their death crying and wetting themselves like the little b*tches that they really are. Deal with it with absolute brutality instead of a media circus and it will end. period.

 

Thats not curing the cause for the violence at all. Its just about revenge. Eye for eye. Never worked, never will work. I doubt very much it would prevent a single kid that goes ballistic from shooting. Just makes it an even bigger media event.

 

I didn't say banning guns would solve the problem either. As you said, we had a very severe and sad case of school schooting here, although we have very tight laws about guns. The laws didn't work in this case. But i still think the harsh laws have prevented more shootings here.

Edited February 15, 2008 by YaP

[Tiger]

For a school shooting to happen, laws have already been broken. Minors aren't supposed to have guns at all or under a very narrow range of circumstances.

When I was a junior in high school, there was a hunting accident involving two students at my school. One of them ended up getting shot, because the other guy's gun had a jam. He had the gun pointed at his friend, and it discharged, killing the kid instantly.

 

The parents should never have allowed the two of them to go hunting alone. In my opinion, they were too young to be hunting at all. People need to keep guns away from kids and teens at all costs.

[FrenchCanadian]

When I was a junior in high school, there was a hunting accident involving two students at my school. One of them ended up getting shot, because the other guy's gun had a jam. He had the gun pointed at his friend, and it discharged, killing the kid instantly.

 

The parents should never have allowed the two of them to go hunting alone. In my opinion, they were too young to be hunting at all. People need to keep guns away from kids and teens at all costs.

 

I know that hunting is something very liked in some area, but I have to agree, kids and teens shouldn't be able to use guns, even for recreational reason.

[shadowgod]

I don't even know where to start. The shootings, all of them are unfortunate, but to go as far as a very public execution and strict gun control? Neither of those are realistic solutions.

 

Publicly executing a 14 year old for a crime is heinous. I don't think I'd care to be part of any society that condones such a action. Just as I am remiss to be a part of a society that hold a juvenile as copable for crimes as an adult. It is a disgusting double standard where we tell them they are not old enough to have certain freedoms, but on the other hand tell them they are old enough to be punished as an adult.

 

Stricter gun control laws only thwart those of us who do abide by the law. behind Illicit drugs, the black mark for guns is the second largest shadow market in the world. Stricter controls will only force more traffic to the black market.

 

As far as kids handling guns. I dont think they should not be allowed, but they should be supervised all the time, and they should be taught to respect the weapons. I own a gun, I go camping several times a year. Guns jam. Let me tell you anyone who steps in front of a muzzle, loaded or not, at our campsite gets a severe tongue lashing. Putting yourself in danger like that is just thoughtless and stupid.

 

As far as the original post that implied certain groups of society having more right over other groups to lash out against that society... That is just stupid. It is stupid and dangerous. Each sub group has just as much right as every other to react, but that goes off into a whole different rant.

[JamesSavik]

Its just about revenge. Eye for eye. Never worked, never will work.

 

 

SO the use of violence/force never works? Hummm... I wonder what the Nazi Germans think about that... Oh that's right. They are all dead from the use of force by the Allies.

 

Force does work and it is applied all the time. Whether it is used sucessfully or not depends on how it is applied.

 

The reason that Americans aren't so good at the use of force is that Americans don't have the stomach for the terror behind that force. Without it you might as well be playing games like dropping bombs and food at the same time. Oh that's right. We do that too.

[AFriendlyFace]

Oh my, I have so many thoughts on this! First off:

 

I think that weapons are so easily accessible in the US is one (but of course not the only) reason why this happens so often in the US. Its much harder to get hold of a gun here, and we have much less shootings here - not only in schools, but in general.

I don't think the brutal "eye for eye" approach would help at all to prevent shootings. Answering violence with violence never helps. Quite contrary - a society that openly uses violence teaches that it is OK to use violence, and actually encourages brutality.

There is a reason why some kids flip out and have such a low barrier to use violence. There have to be signs that a kid may go ballistic before it actually happens. If the social environment (parents, friends...) care enough to pick up those signs, i think there would be a good chance to stop it from happening.

Of course it is the person who pulls the trigger that does the killing, not the gun...

As i said before, i don't think that the (compared to other countries) "easy" access to guns is the sole reason for the shootings. There is a reason why people cross the line and get violent like that. If they don't have access to guns, it wouldn't end in a shooting, but might still end in violence, like stabbing (although i think it takes far more to kill someone with a knife - its much more "personal" than pulling a trigger, you have to get in much closer contact to the victim...).

 

Having tougher gun control laws like in Canada, or over here, at least seems to reduce the number of shootings, so IMHO it's not a bad idea. I personally don't see a reason why "normal" people need a gun anyway - i am happy to leave that privilege to the military and the police etc.

 

But in order to stop the violence, we have to find out what makes people go ballistic in the first place, and work on that.

 

I almost completely agree with every word Pete said in both his posts.

 

I'm very much in favour of gun control. I agree that there's very little reason why anyone beyond the military and the police should have a gun.

 

I'm pretty ambivalent about hunting...I mean for one thing I'm a vegetarian and while animal rights is only a very small part of that decision it does play it to it slightly. I don't categorically oppose hunting by any means though. My solution would be to significantly regulate when and where people can hunt, and to allow them to "rent" the guns for the duration of their hunting excursion and then return them. I also think shooting ranges are fun, and could be handled in similar fashion.

 

Ouch! :wacko: Shootings in Australia are rare, very rare, but I have to say that the media here must be becoming desensitised, too, because I haven't seen reports on this in our newspapers.

Personally, I don't care for the way the media handles and handles AND HANDLES tragedies when they occur. I agree that they should report them, but they don't need to beat us over the head with them. After a tragedy occurs details and constant coverage are almost impossible to avoid (I agree that these additional details and coverage should be out there if you're looking for them, but they shouldn't swamp you!).

 

This has a very unfortunate effect on me. After awhile I just get so frustrated and annoyed with hearing about it all the time that any mention of the event usually triggers a knee-jerk "I don't want to hear about it or talk about it anymore" response. This is sad because the victims of these tragedies do deserve our sympathy. What they don't deserve is having everyone up in their private lives and having the media broadcast the tragedy in a 24-7 loop, such that neither they nor anyone else for that matter, has any chance of moving on with their lives.

 

It is for this reason (among a few others) that I do not watch television anymore.

 

The parents should never have allowed the two of them to go hunting alone. In my opinion, they were too young to be hunting at all. People need to keep guns away from kids and teens at all costs.

I mostly would agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of kids and teens completely...but then I would mostly make this statement with regards to 90% of the rest of humanity (if not more).

 

It would be nice if kids were the only ones who were too irresponsible to handle a gun. The truth is they are certainly not. Indeed there are quite a few sensible, sane 15 year olds in whose hands I'd rather see a gun than wacky, unstable 30 year olds. I'm certainly not saying 15 year olds should use guns, but I think simply stating "No minors should have access to guns, and all (for the most part) adults should" is a ridiculous and dangerous over simplification.

 

Yes, but the gun helps don't cha think?

Exactly! Everyone always argues that "the crazy people will still get access to the guns anyway", but that argument is comparable to saying "There's no reason to restrict access to weapons of mass destruction. If people want to destroy huge world populations they will anyway".

 

Yes, of course those kids could have used other weapons, but other weapons would have been easier to get away from/avoid, they would have been easier to stop, and they simply would not have been able to kill as many people quickly. They may have wanted to and intended to, but that doesn't mean they could have actualized their plans.

 

Yes, right now there would still be tons of blackmarket firearms out there, but only time and efforts to clean that up will make that problem go away, and using this as an excuse not to get started and give it a try is pretty lazy and irresponsible IMO.

 

Also, the vast majority of "upstanding" American citizens don't buy things on the black market. That means that in all likelihood these kids' upper-middle class, white parents wouldn't have had illegal guns sitting around the house. I'm not saying they couldn't have figure out some way to get the guns, but it would have been a lot more difficult and time consuming, and there would have been a much greater likelihood that they'd have been caught in the process.

 

I don't use illegal drugs. If I wanted to I'm sure I could get a hold of them. However, it would be a lot more dangerous, difficult, and legally risky than if I decided right now "Gee, I think I'll take a hit" and walked over to my bedside table.

 

1: I read an interesting article from a feminist perspective... sorry, forgot the author. It pointed out that serial killings and school shootings are carried out most often by far by America's least marginalized class: middle-class white males (only about 25-30% of our population, so it's not statistics.) She proposed that several factors, including a romanticization of the act of lashing out and saying f**K the world, an upbringing emphasizing that a man must deal with problems in a man's way, and a peer culture of destructive apathy, are causing acts of random violence by people with the least right to seek revenge on society.

That is very interesting! However, I would not posit quite the same theory. I would think that the main reason this group is the one that perpetrates the killings is because 1) they have higher expectations for how great their life should be as white males, and 2) they have less experience in over-coming adversity, and lack many of the most important resources and skills.

 

I suppose the other stuff plays into significantly too though.

 

2: The way I personally deal with the killings is to say that I await, with contempt but without fear, the day that random violence takes my life. But I would rather it not merely ruin my life, it must take it. I want to honestly be able to say that dying (passively) is the appropriate outcome of having to live in a world where people must destroy each others' happiness for kicks.

No offense, but that seems like a bit of a silly perception. Statistically you're very unlikely to die from (or be involved in) any kind of major violent event. It is by no means inevitable; in fact it's unlikely.

 

 

Take care everyone and have a great day!

-Kevin

[AFriendlyFace]

Edit: cross-posted

 

SO the use of violence/force never works? Hummm... I wonder what the Nazi Germans think about that... Oh that's right. They are all dead from the use of force by the Allies.

 

Force does work and it is applied all the time. Whether it is used sucessfully or not depends on how it is applied.

 

The reason that Americans aren't so good at the use of force is that Americans don't have the stomach for the terror behind that force. Without it you might as well be playing games like dropping bombs and food at the same time. Oh that's right. We do that too.

Actually, I do agree with this post.

 

As Pete and I both mentioned in prior posts, there's nothing wrong with the military and police using force when necessary.

 

Also, I strongly agree with you that the outcome is determined in how the force is applied.

 

I've also always thought it was incredibly stupid, to go around trying to simultaneously destroy and build up our enemies. I am a pacifist and almost always oppose war (indeed WWII is the last war/conflict in which the US has been involved that I don't considered a mistake), but for goodness sake, if we're going to fight a war let's do it right! Get in, blast them, and get out.

 

 

-Kevin

[FrenchCanadian]

Publicly executing a 14 year old for a crime is heinous. I don't think I'd care to be part of any society that condone's such a action. Just as I am remiss to be a part of a society that hold a juvienile as copable for crimes as an adult. It is a disgusting double standard where we tell them they are not old enough to have certin freedoms, but on the other hand tell them they are old enough to be punished as an adult.

 

Alright, on this this thing I'm kinda unsure. taking a 14y.o. and sending him in the slammer for the rest of his life or worse execute. But still, taking a gun and killing someone,, that guy/girl has got to have a punishment for it,, and hopefully some treatment.

[shadowgod]

Also, the vast majority of "upstanding" American citizens don't buy things on the black market. That means that in all likelihood these kids' upper-middle class, white parents wouldn't have had illegal guns sitting around the house. I'm not saying they couldn't have figure out some way to get the guns, but it would have been a lot more difficult and time consuming, and there would have been a much greater likelihood that they'd have been caught in the process.

 

Sorry Kevin, but that reasoning is historically inaccurate.

 

It was pointed out earlier the Kids from Columbine purchased their own weapons off the street. Also you need look no further then Prohibition to see how "upstanding" citizens will turn to whatever market supplies what they need.

 

As for purchasing weapons this way being more time consuming... How? Every gun sold in the State of California has a 14 day waiting period. To purchase a handgun one has to watch a video, read a book on gun safety and pass a test. Does this keep weapons out of the hands of countless gang members? No. I'll leave you to deduce how they get their hands on the weapons they require. The only time consuming thing about the black market is obtaining the knowledge of who to see, after that 10 15 minutes tops and you will get what you want.

 

As a society we have a bad habit of blaming objects/others for the ills of our society. The startling fact in most cases is that the blame lays no further then the closest mirror.

 

All of these school shootings, They should place the parents on trial for manslaughter (negligent homicide) It was their negligence and lack of involvement with their children that is the root of the mess. Perhaps we should start licensing parents as well?

[scoopny]

I think one problem is that gun control is largely done by the states. One study found that many of the guns that wind up illegally in places like California and New York were purchased legally in places like Texas and Virginia and then shipped illegally around the country. Sure gun control can work, but the way we do it, it's certain to fail. There's this myth that criminals are buying weapons that are "stolen." Instead they are buying guns that have been laundered.

 

 

As many as half the handguns used in crimes had been purchased from federally licensed dealers within the prior three years, passing far more quickly from manufacturer to dealer to criminal than previously believed, according to new Federal law-enforcement data that are expected to play a major role in suits against the handgun industry.

 

That finding, along with other evidence that is emerging in the suits, challenges a long-held view that most guns used in crimes are stolen, say academic experts, gun-control advocates and lawyers suing the gun makers. They say the data show that many handguns enter an illegal black market even as they leave the store, contrary to the industry's argument that its dealers are not the source and that measures like better inventory control and tighter regulation would do little to keep guns from criminals.

 

''The data is hugely significant, because it shows that there is a stream of guns, especially semiautomatic handguns, that are moving very rapidly out of gun stores into the hands of criminals,'' said David Kennedy, a researcher at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of the Boston Gun Project, which has helped reduce juvenile violence in Boston by identifying and cracking down on gun dealers who sell to minors.

 

''It means this is something we can fix,'' Mr. Kennedy said.

Edited February 15, 2008 by scoopny

[AFriendlyFace]

Sorry Kevin, but that reasoning is historically inaccurate.

 

It was pointed out earlier the Kids from Columbine purchased their own weapons off the street.

That doesn't make it "historically inaccurate", that just means that in that instance the kids didn't grab the guns from their parents home. As far as I know the vast majority of shootings have been done by kids who got the weapons from family or friends.

 

Also, even here, I suspect stronger gun control would have helped keep those guns off the streets in the first place. It stands to reason that if very few people had guns in the first place there would be very few guns available to be bought illegally.

 

Today's guns laws, or any passed in the near future, have nothing to do with today's gun prevalence, for that we have to look a few years back when those guns were first being circulated.

 

In any case I don't know where those particular guns came from or what their history was, but I'm not talking simply about this one case of school shootings, nor am I even only talking about school shootings at all, I'm talk about all violent, gun related crimes.

 

I don't see how, regardless of human intent, or the origin of the guns in question, one can argue that reducing the availability of these guns won't reduce gun related incidents. There's a very simple trickle down effect. Also, I'm certainly not arguing that that will solve all our gun related problems and prevent another school shooting from happening. It would be very very foolish to think that. I'm simply arguing fewer overall guns = fewer overall incidents, regardless of any other factor.

Also you need look no further then Prohibition to see how "upstanding" citizens will turn to whatever market supplies what they need.

Actually, this is a good example for my point. Prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption, lots of people broke the law and did it anyway, and it was very difficult to enforce, but it still did reduce overall alcohol consumption.

 

Here's another very relevant personal example. Last night I wanted to make margaritas. There's a very close grocery story in my neighbourhood so I wanted to go there for supplies as well as regular groceries. The problem is, which I knew full well prior to going there, in Texas they don't see Tequila or any hard liquor in grocery stores or gas stations, you have to go to a liquor store. There IS a liquor store less than 2 miles away. I still decided to just buy wine instead whether than going out of my way to go to the liquor store. I certainly could have done it, it wouldn't have been that big a deal, but it just wasn't as convenient so I didn't.

 

In Louisiana I could buy almost any type of liquor at almost any time of store or gas station. Louisiana is even known for having quite a few "drive through" options. It was very convenient. I could also buy anything I wanted right up to 2am. Here in Texas the liquor stores are required to close at 9pm, and the grocery stores quite selling beer and wine at 12am. Since moving here there have been quite a few instances besides the one I mentioned above in which I wanted something but didn't feel like going to a specific store, or it was too late to buy it. Of course it would be easy to get around these problems by just going to the liquor store earlier, but it's inconvenient and that has resulted in me consuming less alcohol. I imagine if we were still living under prohibition I would still drink, but chances are I'd do it significantly less than I do now.

As for purchasing weapons this way being more time consuming... How? Every gun sold in the State of California has a 14 day waiting period. To purchase a handgun one has to watch a video, read a book on gun safety and pass a test. Does this keep weapons out of the hands of countless gang members? No.

But it undoubtedly keeps them out of the hands of many, and would keep them out of the hands of more (but still not all) if they were illegal altogether.

I'll leave you to deduce how they get their hands on the weapons they require. The only time consuming thing about the black market is obtaining the knowledge of who to see, after that 10 15 minutes tops and you will get what you want.

People don't tend to keep illegal things around long-term, nor do they general procure them far in advance of when they might want to use them. Look at drugs. Most drug users don't buy the month's stash in the same way they buy the cereal they'll be consuming. They tend to buy it on an as needed basis, and not just keep a lot of it around "in case they later want some later".

 

In the same way I think people are less likely to buy contraband guns simply because they may want to use them later. Oh some will, just fewer. Sure if you're dead set on going on a homicidal rage you'll get your guns and you'll go, but you'll be less likely to be able to do it "impulsively".

 

Where gun control really comes in isn't with gangs and premeditated murders (although I still think it has a slight effect here as well). Where it really comes in is preventing everyday, "heat of the moment" "I'm really pissed and look here's a gun" kinda instances.

 

It also keeps little Billy from blowing his head off (or shooting his sister) when he finds Daddy's gun in the closet. Sure one can argue that's the father's fault, but the point remains if the gun is less likely to be there (which it is if it's illegal), it's less likely to happen.

 

All of these school shootings, They should place the parents on trial for manslaughter (negligent homicide) It was their negligence and lack of involvement with their children that is the root of the mess. Perhaps we should start licensing parents as well?

I'm very much for parental involvement and good parenting, but I think you'd be surprised how easily something like this can happen even to "everyday" parents. And just because you aren't going to win parent of the year doesn't mean you deserve a child who kills people, and it certainly doesn't mean you deserve people making your pain worse by blaming you.

 

This is very comparable to blaming parents whose kids kill themselves, which is - thankfully - much less fashionable. Yes, there are usually signs, and if you're very diligent, and lucky, you can spot them, but they're also surprisingly easy to miss in some cases, and a great deal depends on the personality and temperament of the individual kid. For some kids anger and depression are easy to spot; for some they aren't.

 

 

-Kevin

[Menzoberranzen]

People need to take responsibility for their own actions - it is the shooters fault, even if the parents were contributing facts.

 

It's a pity more of the younger ones don't off themselves at the same time, like the college-aged ones do. Then we'd all be spared the ridiculous claims that it's 'society's' fault, or the media's. You find me a mentally average fourteen year old in the United States who is too stupid to know the consequences of shooting someone, and then I will agree that he shouldn't be tried as an adult.

 

Menzo

[FrenchCanadian]

People need to take responsibility for their own actions - it is the shooters fault, even if the parents were contributing facts.

 

It's a pity more of the younger ones don't off themselves at the same time, like the college-aged ones do. Then we'd all be spared the ridiculous claims that it's 'society's' fault, or the media's. You find me a mentally average fourteen year old in the United States who is too stupid to know the consequences of shooting someone, and then I will agree that he shouldn't be tried as an adult.

 

Menzo

 

I have to agree with that point,, I'll never believe that at 14 you don't realize that when you pull a trigger you can kill someone. A 14 y.o. knows that once the shooting is done, the victims won't get back from the death by miracle.

 

The one thing that they might be lacking is : Control. As you grow up you realize that you have to control your rage, that you gotta have some self restrain and think before doing something

[shadowgod]

People need to take responsibility for their own actions - it is the shooters fault, even if the parents were contributing facts.

 

It's a pity more of the younger ones don't off themselves at the same time, like the college-aged ones do. Then we'd all be spared the ridiculous claims that it's 'society's' fault, or the media's. You find me a mentally average fourteen year old in the United States who is too stupid to know the consequences of shooting someone, and then I will agree that he shouldn't be tried as an adult.

 

Menzo

 

Seems to add to the belief that they really don't know what they are doing doesn't it?

 

 

Am I the only person that finds such disposable attitudes appaling? Have we degraded to such a point where it is acceptable to throw everything away?

[Menzoberranzen]

Seems to add to the belief that they really don't know what they are doing doesn't it?

 

 

Am I the only person that finds such disposable attitudes appaling? Have we degraded to such a point where it is acceptable to throw everything away?

 

Everything is about choice. I defend the right to choose, so I don't consider it unacceptable to throw everything away if that's your choice. My sympathy goes to many different people; school-shooters are not among them. Society is better off without them.

 

I also don't see how not killing yourself makes you somehow so stupid as to not recognize the ramifications of going on a shooting spree. There is no subtelty; the consequences are plainly visible.

 

Menzo