The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread
Discussion
Having worked in education for the past 5 years, I would not want a single teacher I've worked with to have any access to a gun.
It's hard enough dealing with kids, let alone when you've access to a firearm. Seeing the working conditions and general mental state of the staff, it would be far, far too tempting for one of them to pull the trigger on a particularly annoying kid when the stress gets way too much. That's in the UK too, American schools are even worse off funding and support wise from what I can tell.
Have definitely had the conversations after a kid or several have gone off their trolley and said 'well, glad we don't live in America because they'd have shot the school up' too. It would terrify the hell out of me knowing that some of the kids I've worked with had access to a gun.
Although I suppose that would put an end to deranged students going around shooting the school up, shoot them first so they can't do it. Makes total sense! America #1!
It's hard enough dealing with kids, let alone when you've access to a firearm. Seeing the working conditions and general mental state of the staff, it would be far, far too tempting for one of them to pull the trigger on a particularly annoying kid when the stress gets way too much. That's in the UK too, American schools are even worse off funding and support wise from what I can tell.
Have definitely had the conversations after a kid or several have gone off their trolley and said 'well, glad we don't live in America because they'd have shot the school up' too. It would terrify the hell out of me knowing that some of the kids I've worked with had access to a gun.
Although I suppose that would put an end to deranged students going around shooting the school up, shoot them first so they can't do it. Makes total sense! America #1!
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Friday 27th May 19:38
MKnight702 said:
Gary C said:
I would ban both of them.
And any rifle that carries more than two rounds.
and handguns.
If a people can't handle its toys, its time they are taken away.
So what you are saying is everyone should be punished for the actions of a few? And any rifle that carries more than two rounds.
and handguns.
If a people can't handle its toys, its time they are taken away.
I think we all know the answer though.
MKnight702 said:
In short, don’t blame the tool, blame the user.
No.In short, you blame both.
You don't let mentally unwell people have access to firearms, so yes blame the user, but they wouldn't be able to do the damge they do if the firearm didn't exist in the first place, so blame the tool too.
Anything else smacks of 'I love my guns so I wanna keep 'em'.
America DOES have too many guns. There's no such thing as responsible ownership whereby they're kept locked up because that defeats their purpose. When your house gets raided you don't politely ask the burglar/criminal/whatever to wait a second whilst you get the key and go to the gun safe so they're just there lying about.
Loads of school/mass shootings have featured the shooter accessing a gun that was a family members or a friends or a neighbours. They're just lying about. 400 million guns, all readily available for any nutjob to do what they want. That's too many.
A limit of one gun per household and a strict license and registration system with full mental and criminal history background checks abailable or no guns at all.
MKnight702 said:
So what you are saying is everyone should be punished for the actions of a few? So, god forbid, if Brake ever get the attention that they desperately crave, you would be perfectly happy for a total car ban or blanket 20mph speed limits because some people can’t be trusted not to speed?
The US has a big problem, but it isn’t simply too many guns, other countries also have similar levels of gun ownership but don’t have the same problem with gun crime, so clearly, the problem can’t simply be gun ownership. As I have suggested already, I believe the woeful state of the US healthcare system is partly to blame. Also, the almost unfettered access to the whole range of firearms with little or no review of the potential owner.
In short, don’t blame the tool, blame the user. None of the firearms I have owned or used have leapt up and run amuck, nor have I ever heard of such a thing happening. If there is ever a problem, it is the nut behind the trigger. Look at Plymouth, we have some of the most stringent firearms legislation in the world, yet the Police dropped the ball and gave back rightly confiscated shotguns, the nutter then did what nutters do. The problem was the nutter was given access to something he shouldn’t have been.
1. Cars and the many other types of vehicles serve many purposes other than to run things over and kill or destroy them. The use of those vehicles is heavily controlled requiring significant investment to legally get behind the wheel. The US has a big problem, but it isn’t simply too many guns, other countries also have similar levels of gun ownership but don’t have the same problem with gun crime, so clearly, the problem can’t simply be gun ownership. As I have suggested already, I believe the woeful state of the US healthcare system is partly to blame. Also, the almost unfettered access to the whole range of firearms with little or no review of the potential owner.
In short, don’t blame the tool, blame the user. None of the firearms I have owned or used have leapt up and run amuck, nor have I ever heard of such a thing happening. If there is ever a problem, it is the nut behind the trigger. Look at Plymouth, we have some of the most stringent firearms legislation in the world, yet the Police dropped the ball and gave back rightly confiscated shotguns, the nutter then did what nutters do. The problem was the nutter was given access to something he shouldn’t have been.
2. Plymouth happened last year. When was the last time before that the the checks and balances failed? For reference it shows that these are extremely rare occurrences happening less then once a decade and in reducing numbers of deaths each time. The total of the four major instances in living memory (not mine I wasn’t born when Hungerford happened) and the other isolated instances is significantly less than a normal month in the US. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy, but the regulation and control here seems to be very impressive.
You are right though. Guns don’t kill people, people do. However, without those guns, people struggle to kill others. Despite the wailing whataboutism, there is a clear message in that sound bite. Regulate both people and guns, that way you deal with both problems. Of course you and especially NMNeil don’t want to hear that, you want instead to pretend that you should only blame one side 100% and then only do anything if it 100% guarantees that nothing bad can ever happen again, which is quite obviously both impossible and ridiculous.
HM-2 said:
Everytown don't actually appear to define what an "Assault Weapon" is,
It looks really suspect... Especially when an "assault rifle" is already defined.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
wikipedia said:
An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
If it meets those criteria, it should be restricted. I'm not surprised the usual suspects are here trying to argue against facts with enormous feats of mental gymnastics. It's not even been 3 days and they're already trying to whitewash the blood of 19 people off the pavement.
Why do angsty American disaffected youth choose to shoot helpless school kids?
It’s to get their name recorded in history, their name spread across the world. Their photograph haunting the families of the dead.
We should wipe them off recorded history forever. No need to even know their name. Send them to oblivion. Wipe them off the timeline.
It’s to get their name recorded in history, their name spread across the world. Their photograph haunting the families of the dead.
We should wipe them off recorded history forever. No need to even know their name. Send them to oblivion. Wipe them off the timeline.
simo1863 said:
Nice twisting and squirming. Ban guns that really only have a place in an army or other military. Allow hunting rifles, limited shot handguns etc.
Vet, vet and vet again anyone who wants to have a gun, check them ruthlessly and relentlessly.
It still won’t stop indic]visual tragic incidents, but it will stop them being every day occurrences.
MKnight702 said:
So what you are saying is everyone should be punished for the actions of a few? So, god forbid, if Brake ever get the attention that they desperately crave, you would be perfectly happy for a total car ban or blanket 20mph speed limits because some people can’t be trusted not to speed?
Sorry but these sorts of comparisons simply don't hold water logically. The reason we don't have a blanket 20mph speed limit or complete ban on cars is because a car provides a huge daily BENEFIT to the average person. Personal mobility is the single greatest freedom and enabler in our lives.What is the benefit to the average person in gun ownership? It's not 1865 any more, most people don't need to be able to shoot a bear, or a cattle rustler, or hunt and forage to survive off the land. For some a gun is a leisure activity and really i don't see why this can't continue with stricter licencing and a no public carry law, just as other countries (like the uk) already do
if we banned cars tmorrow millions would struggle to continue their existing lifestyle and working habbits.
if we banned guns tomorrow, er, some people wouldn't be able to have their "gun fun" and that's about it. Worth noting that in the UK we have (sensibly) tough gun laws, yet everyday thousands of people with a legitimate need to own and use a gun are allowed to continue to do just that.
MKnight702 said:
The US has a big problem, but it isn’t simply too many guns, other countries also have similar levels of gun ownership but don’t have the same problem with gun crime, so clearly, the problem can’t simply be gun ownership. As I have suggested already, I believe the woeful state of the US healthcare system is partly to blame. Also, the almost unfettered access to the whole range of firearms with little or no review of the potential owner.
In short, don’t blame the tool, blame the user. None of the firearms I have owned or used have leapt up and run amuck, nor have I ever heard of such a thing happening. If there is ever a problem, it is the nut behind the trigger. Look at Plymouth, we have some of the most stringent firearms legislation in the world, yet the Police dropped the ball and gave back rightly confiscated shotguns, the nutter then did what nutters do. The problem was the nutter was given access to something he shouldn’t have been.
Now this ^^^ is actually is the same reason we have 20 mph limits!In short, don’t blame the tool, blame the user. None of the firearms I have owned or used have leapt up and run amuck, nor have I ever heard of such a thing happening. If there is ever a problem, it is the nut behind the trigger. Look at Plymouth, we have some of the most stringent firearms legislation in the world, yet the Police dropped the ball and gave back rightly confiscated shotguns, the nutter then did what nutters do. The problem was the nutter was given access to something he shouldn’t have been.
We have a 20 mph limit outside a school not because something will happen but because it might. We are mitigating a direct and quantifiable risk by reducing the speed limit to attempt to mitigate the effects of a collision between a car and a person. At 20mph the probability of surviving being hit by a car is massively greater than if hit at say 40. We know we can't entirely prevent collisions occuring so we sensibly mitigate against the outcome by limiting the speed of the cars by legislation. Here, the "inconvience" of that limitation (being only able to drive at 20) is seen as being an appropriate side effect of the more significant gain, namely not running over and killing children. And if you ignore the law, drive at 40 past a school and knock over and kill a child then you are penalised appropriately for not adhering to that legistlation
With guns everywhere in the USA (physically and metaphorically) any incident becomes more life threatening. An arguement and fight in the uk tends to mean some punches are thrown, but with guns accessable, people die, and die regularily. (knife carrying is the obvious comparitor in the uk, where carrying a blade massively increases the risk of serious injury and death, but few would consider there to be any valid reason to carry a knife on ones person under most circumstances, despite every kitchen in the uk being full of the things. (imo, gun carrying is actually far worse than carrying a knife because a coward can use a gun at a distance to kill someone on a whim, whereas with a knife (or your fists) whilst you can indeed kill or seriously injure someone but you have to get up close and personal to do it.
We also imo, have a massive problem with the image we present in particular to young people in our media, where the gun is seen as a macho, honerable weapon. It's imo, weird when you think about it, that in Holywood today we can a watch people being shot and maimed in any maintstream action film, but that same film not only cannot show footage of someone kicking a cat (for example) but also has to put a little statement at the end of the film to show that they didn't in fact hurt any animal. That, imo, is where we have gone wrong.......... (for clairity i'm not saying we should kick cats, i'm saying we shouldn't depict people being shot and killed with such gay abandon)
TTmonkey said:
Why do angsty American disaffected youth choose to shoot helpless school kids?
It’s to get their name recorded in history, their name spread across the world. Their photograph haunting the families of the dead.
We should wipe them off recorded history forever. No need to even know their name. Send them to oblivion. Wipe them off the timeline.
Because the schools over there are where these people are made.It’s to get their name recorded in history, their name spread across the world. Their photograph haunting the families of the dead.
We should wipe them off recorded history forever. No need to even know their name. Send them to oblivion. Wipe them off the timeline.
It really is like lord of the flies with those least refined and least qualified on top (the quarterback and beauty queen), kept their by the use of violence and supported by the establishment. So use of violence is taught to these kids as an acceptable means to an end.
So these kids get out of school, go out in the real world and you end up with the people who adjust and those who don't. Those who don't are either the bullies who's football careers didn't work out or those who were bullied and could never attain anything else in life. They are now radicalised by the far right, told that what they're doing is right and sick of their dead end job.
Ultimately it all started with their schools, whilst no excuse, understanding the cause is key to preventing future events.
Of course this involves admitting that the American way of education is horribly broken. So it'll never happen. More thoughts and prayers.
Let us be honest here the majority of the civilised world see no reason that a person needs to own a gun for self defence, for hunting yes, but that is a very specific thing and should be more controlled than it is in America,
there is no reason whatsoever to buy or carry a 50 calibre handgun FFS, there is no real reason for anything other than militarily to use a 50 calibre sniper rifle, there is no reason why an assault rifle or any kind of semi automatic weapon would ever be needed for self defence or hunting.
Yet here we are. it is beyond me how this country still allows all this in the face of endless killings like this, it is almost as if "we have enough people we can afford to let some die in the defence of our right to bar arms"
Read that and realise what the rest of the world thinks of you, it is beyond inhumane. If you stop demented people buying guns, they might still do it, but you would prevent a lot more, innocents die because you wat an arsenal in your shed to go and shoot trees, great.
it is why I am far more scared of America losing it than Russia, China or anywhere else, as these guys really do believe in this stuff, and are heavily religious a very nasty cocktail
there is no reason whatsoever to buy or carry a 50 calibre handgun FFS, there is no real reason for anything other than militarily to use a 50 calibre sniper rifle, there is no reason why an assault rifle or any kind of semi automatic weapon would ever be needed for self defence or hunting.
Yet here we are. it is beyond me how this country still allows all this in the face of endless killings like this, it is almost as if "we have enough people we can afford to let some die in the defence of our right to bar arms"
Read that and realise what the rest of the world thinks of you, it is beyond inhumane. If you stop demented people buying guns, they might still do it, but you would prevent a lot more, innocents die because you wat an arsenal in your shed to go and shoot trees, great.
it is why I am far more scared of America losing it than Russia, China or anywhere else, as these guys really do believe in this stuff, and are heavily religious a very nasty cocktail
unident said:
Nice twisting and squirming.
Ban guns that really only have a place in an army or other military. Allow hunting rifles, limited shot handguns etc.
Vet, vet and vet again anyone who wants to have a gun, check them ruthlessly and relentlessly.
It still won’t stop indic]visual tragic incidents, but it will stop them being every day occurrences.
This thread is extremely hyperbolic. From both sides.Ban guns that really only have a place in an army or other military. Allow hunting rifles, limited shot handguns etc.
Vet, vet and vet again anyone who wants to have a gun, check them ruthlessly and relentlessly.
It still won’t stop indic]visual tragic incidents, but it will stop them being every day occurrences.
I see a lot of pro gun argument online saying that because recent events have happened in a state with strict gun control and a gun free zone, its justification for less gun control, which is f
king ridiculous.The "but in the UK knife crime is X, acid attacks Y etc" is ridiculous too, violent crime stats in the UK are tiny by comparison, but so is "ban everything", both from a practical point of view and a cultural one. A lot of the police in the US seem to encourage armed response to home invasion, by the occupant.
And I don't buy it, if someone living near me wanted to kill my children, taking away one of the best tools for the job is only tackling a fraction of the problem. There are deeper US issues at play; healthcare, mental health, social norms, parenting, media, I don't know exactly but it's not just simply down to you not being able to set foot outside your house without stepping on a gun.
Chances are you know someone that would be very unsuitable to own a gun, but also someone that you'd be fine having a tank, so why impose on people who have done nothing wrong or wont ever? There just needs to be better ways to stop one of them.
Proposed bans on body armour really confuse me too. It's a passive form of self protection, but no one is shrugging off rounds from it and carrying on a shooting spree. Not sure if any other ex forces types (on here) have dealt with it before but taking a round to a bullet proof vest incapacitated me for hours. A ban will only cost lives, and besides: its just pieces of ceramic, fabric and metal, how could it even be banned?
simo1863 said:
This thread is extremely hyperbolic. From both sides.
I see a lot of pro gun argument online saying that because recent events have happened in a state with strict gun control and a gun free zone, its justification for less gun control, which is fking ridiculous.
The "but in the UK knife crime is X, acid attacks Y etc" is ridiculous too, violent crime stats in the UK are tiny by comparison, but so is "ban everything", both from a practical point of view and a cultural one. A lot of the police in the US seem to encourage armed response to home invasion, by the occupant.
And I don't buy it, if someone living near me wanted to kill my children, taking away one of the best tools for the job is only tackling a fraction of the problem. There are deeper US issues at play; healthcare, mental health, social norms, parenting, media, I don't know exactly but it's not just simply down to you not being able to set foot outside your house without stepping on a gun.
Chances are you know someone that would be very unsuitable to own a gun, but also someone that you'd be fine having a tank, so why impose on people who have done nothing wrong or wont ever? There just needs to be better ways to stop one of them.
Proposed bans on body armour really confuse me too. It's a passive form of self protection, but no one is shrugging off rounds from it and carrying on a shooting spree. Not sure if any other ex forces types (on here) have dealt with it before but taking a round to a bullet proof vest incapacitated me for hours. A ban will only cost lives, and besides: its just pieces of ceramic, fabric and metal, how could it even be banned?
That’s just repeating the arguments in a different format. Bans do work, they make it very difficult to get hold of whatever is banned. They don’t make it impossible, but nobody is claiming that. Taking away the best tops for the job (your words) makes it harder to do the thing they wanted to do. It’s easy to shoot people from 20 feet and kill them all. It is very difficult to throw dozens of knives per second at at the same group and kill them as easily. Even harder with acid, or hammers, or bricks or whatever tools they have available to them. I see a lot of pro gun argument online saying that because recent events have happened in a state with strict gun control and a gun free zone, its justification for less gun control, which is f
king ridiculous.The "but in the UK knife crime is X, acid attacks Y etc" is ridiculous too, violent crime stats in the UK are tiny by comparison, but so is "ban everything", both from a practical point of view and a cultural one. A lot of the police in the US seem to encourage armed response to home invasion, by the occupant.
And I don't buy it, if someone living near me wanted to kill my children, taking away one of the best tools for the job is only tackling a fraction of the problem. There are deeper US issues at play; healthcare, mental health, social norms, parenting, media, I don't know exactly but it's not just simply down to you not being able to set foot outside your house without stepping on a gun.
Chances are you know someone that would be very unsuitable to own a gun, but also someone that you'd be fine having a tank, so why impose on people who have done nothing wrong or wont ever? There just needs to be better ways to stop one of them.
Proposed bans on body armour really confuse me too. It's a passive form of self protection, but no one is shrugging off rounds from it and carrying on a shooting spree. Not sure if any other ex forces types (on here) have dealt with it before but taking a round to a bullet proof vest incapacitated me for hours. A ban will only cost lives, and besides: its just pieces of ceramic, fabric and metal, how could it even be banned?
Just because one person might not kill a bunch of people, it doesn’t follow that everyone should be trusted as a result. It’s extremely unlikely that I’ll go postal amd kill a load of people of you give me a gun, but the world clearly proves that not everyone thinks the same as me. So regulate the hell out of the ability to buy lethal weapons, licence people, ban certain types of guns. Those who want to use them legitimately shouldn’t have a problem with that, those that do are more than likely to be the ones to cause you concern.
A ban won’t cost lives, inaction will. It already has, Tuesday 24th May 2022 showed that, as has every shooting since the first mass shooting.
simo1863 said:
And I don't buy it, if someone living near me wanted to kill my children, taking away one of the best tools for the job is only tackling a fraction of the problem.
I think this is an important falicy ^^^In reality, when we look at mass murder of adults or children, access to guns allows someone to kill lots of people.
I takes a very special kind of mentalist to physically kill someone with their bare hands, and it takes time.
it takes a single squeeze of a trigger from yards away to kill someone with a gun and it takes no time at all.
I can clearly understand how someone in an angry rage or under the influence of drink, drugs or mentally impared (for whatever reason) could shoot kids. I can't honestly see many people strangling 19 kids to death with their bare hands in any situation
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff