Are school shootings simply the result of capitalism?

[tonni]

From Eastern Europe. 0 registered gun shootings in my country over past 20 years. And trust me, the criminal rate is not low around here.

The reason for USA's wide spread problem should be extremely obvious: you're all gun lunatics.

Born in Estonia or moved there?

 

[tonni]

Swimming pools kill more children than rifles kill people. And let’s be real, nobody really NEEDS a swimming pool.

So do “assault weapon” prohibitionists call for outlawing swimming pools too? Just testing logical consistency.

Logical consistency? You don't see the difference between accidental deaths and mass murder?

 

[tonni]

Oh quit with your doomsday takeover nonsense. You are a bunch of weakling cucks who think carrying an AR in public will make you feel like less of a failure

Also I'm Australian.. You need like 5 of your low testosterone, overweight dummies to even hang with one of us

Neverland, the Netherlands...what's the difference eh?

 

[BudKing8806]

Maybe it's cause people don't really care about the difference between a semi-auto assault rifle and an automatic.

If you can kill 50 people with it within 5 minutes... it probably shouldn't be given to people.

Maybe they don't care but I'd think of you are going to try and pass some legislation you might want to actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Phelly2]

Yes.

Interesting. I can't say I agree, but I can applaud your logically consistent take on it.

Most people (among gun control advocates) find the idea of taking pistols away to be crazy, but those scary rifles have got to go.

 

[Phelly2]

Logical consistency? You don't see the difference between accidental deaths and mass murder?

You're right, there is a big difference between murder and accidental death.

The biggest difference, as I see it, is that accidental death can be avoided by removing the mechanism of injury--in this case, the swimming pool.

Taking a tool away from a killer might make him less efficient at killing, but it doesn't prevent him from killing.

But even if we imagined, in our wildest dreams, that we could convert all rifle homicides to zero, we could save at least 10 times as many by banning swimming pools. Come on Tonni. Join me. We need more laws. Freedom kills.

Did you know that, according to the CDC, African American kids are 5.5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools than white kids? If it helps, just think of swimming pools as a genocidal tool of the white patriarchy.

- 350 rifle homicides per year
- 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating) per year--mostly swimming pools, according to the CDC website.

 

[tonni]

You're right, there is a big difference between murder and accidental death.

The biggest difference, as I see it, is that accidental death can be avoided by removing the mechanism of injury--in this case, the swimming pool.

Taking a tool away from a killer might make him less efficient at killing, but it doesn't prevent him from killing.

But even if we imagined, in our wildest dreams, that we could convert all rifle homicides to zero, we could save at least 10 times as many by banning swimming pools. Come on Tonni. Join me. We need more laws. Freedom kills. Did you know that African American kids are 5.5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools than white kids? (I'm not kidding about that last part)

- 350 rifle homicides per year
- 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating) per year--mostly swimming pools, according to the CDC website.

You're engaging in a weird form of whataboutism. Don't you see how silly it is to accuse people who want to stop school shootings of not caring enough about pool drownings...?

Maybe making killers less efficient doesn't solve the problem completely, but at least he doesn't kill as many people.

There are already regulations in swimming pools, lifeguards etc. I guess there could be more supervision and awareness raising about shallow water drowning.

By the way, why even bother stopping ISIS? Cars kill more people than ISIS.

 

[emax]

I agree with a lot of your points; however, bulling was actually much worse in previous generations than it is now. Previous generations also had far more access to firearms than kids today do as well.

I think a lot of it is that we as a society have built up these kids life expectations as small children by telling them they're special, equal, important etc. It's the end result of the whole participation trophy thing in many ways.

"I'm just as important and special as Johnny, so why is Johnny crushing puss after school now while I play World of Warcraft by myself? Why does Johnny get to go to parties that I'm never invited to. Why does johnny and other dudes just like him make fun of me constantly. This isn't the way it was supposed to be........."

I think this combined with psyche meds used to treat an increase in mental illness due to a ton of shit like poor diets, more stress, and an unbelievable amount of violent entertainment have contributed greatly.

Entertainment is definitely a big one. While kids had more access to guns in the 60's and 70's, it wasn't really until the 1980's that movies like Robocop, Scarface, Red Dawn etc started to become standard entertainment. The kids that grew up watching these movies were the first wave of school shooters like Kip Kinkler, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold.

Just so we're clear, what kind of connection are you making to movies vs gun deaths? I mean, I have always thought that if we're gonna be going after gun manufacturers for supposedly making money off of shootings, we should have the ethical consistency for doing it for these movies. If the gun makers are fair game, so is the movie industry which has made ungodly amounts of money promoting gratuitous violence. That said, how much do you think these kinds of movies or the cop shows, i.e. Burn Notice, NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds, NYPD Blue or Pulp Fiction type of movies are contributing to this gun violence?

 

[Ruprecht]

When we banned guns in Australia

We didn't actually "ban guns" you know. There's more now than pre-96. The reduction in firearms homicides were also already happening prior to the '96 restrictions (no noticeable change in the downward trend).
Mostly it just got rid of semi-auto centrefire rifles from anyone but professional shooters. Criminals shifted from sawn-off 10/22s to smuggled handguns.
Not really comparable to the US situation, because we never had firearms for common self-defence.
In American terminology almost all Australian shooters were "fudds". "Black rifles" and young guys owning them have always been sneered at here (at least in my experience). Although less so now with more American influence via the internet and a younger generation of shooters whose interest in guns is driven more by movies and video games than hunting.

 

[Gervinho]

It has nothing to do with gun availability. There are many lawless countries in the world full of weapons. You dont get school massacares. Hell shit places in brazil, africa or asia you dont see this shit

 

[tonni]

It has nothing to do with gun availability. There are many lawless countries in the world full of weapons. You dont get school massacares. Hell shit places in brazil, africa or asia you dont see this shit

Gun availability is definitely a factor. Do you think there would be more or less school shootings with lesser gun availability?

Also, I'm going to frown at making blanket statements of Asia and Africa, as if they're countries.

 

[Neph]

It has nothing to do with gun availability. There are many lawless countries in the world full of weapons. You dont get school massacares. Hell shit places in brazil, africa or asia you dont see this shit

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?referer=http://m.facebook.com

Those statistics are pretty fucking damning.

Now I agree in part, it's not the guns solely causing it. I posted my thoughts somewhere around page 33 of the other giant thread, which in this discussion is a lifetime ago, but there's a whole lot of welfare, mental health and general support that is lacking. Guns simply allow someone with the impulse or desire to cause destruction to do so more easily. If you take the gun away, it becomes more challenging. It's a lot harder to stab 17 people to death in a school than it is to shoot them....

With regards to your comments about Brazil, 'Africa' and 'Asia', tonni adequately responded to the latter two. However for gun violence I don't think you would want to use Brazil as an example of why availability of guns is not a bad thing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Brazil
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03...very-year-some-lawmakers-think-more-guns-will

Their gun violence is fucking unreal. Probably find a different example, or not these weird blanket statements about countries that are actually continents or regions.

 

[Phelly2]

You're engaging in a weird form of whataboutism. Don't you see how silly it is to accuse people who want to stop school shootings of not caring enough about pool drownings...?

Maybe making killers less efficient doesn't solve the problem completely, but at least he doesn't kill as many people.

Everyone wants to stop school shootings. You think I don’t? This isn’t a question of whether I support school shootings. It’s a question of whether the proposed solution (banning rifles) is worth its cost in freedom.

My argument is that taking rifles away will not even come close to solving the problem, and the obvious next step is further restrictions, which again, will not solve the problem. And that cycle will continue and continue until we have no means of self defense, in a country of high murder rates.

There are already regulations in swimming pools, lifeguards etc. I guess there could be more supervision and awareness raising about shallow water drowning.

There are already regulations on guns, too.

But here’s a question: when is it enough? What’s the death count we’re willing to live with? 3,500? 350? 0?

By the way, why even bother stopping ISIS? Cars kill more people than ISIS.

Edit: oh you emphasized ISIS. My bad.
That’s a fair point. Terror attacks are weapons of mass EFFECT. they’re designed to scare more people than they kill. (Thus, affecting political strategies like “get out of Syria!”)

You could say school shootings are also terror attacks. But as I said before, I’m not in favor of school shootings. I’m just against the currently proposed solutions.

 

[Gervinho]

Gun availability is definitely a factor. Do you think there would be more or less school shootings with lesser gun availability?

Also, I'm going to frown at making blanket statements of Asia and Africa, as if they're countries.

I mentioned africa and asia because had i mentioned a country. I would have been told the size and population of america and how you cant compare it to uk or ghana for example

 

[Neph]

Everyone wants to stop school shootings. You think I don’t? This isn’t a question of whether I support school shootings. It’s a question of whether the proposed solution (banning rifles) is worth its cost in freedom.

My argument is that taking rifles away will not even come close to solving the problem, and the obvious next step is further restrictions, which again, will not solve the problem. And that cycle will continue and continue until we have no means of self defense, in a country of high murder rates..

The case that is being made is that the guns cause the danger, which means if they can successfully be weaned out then you won't need them for self defence. I don't know if you have travelled much of the developed world, but it is very much an America only problem. Secondly, while I do understand when you want to ask is it 'worth its cost in freedom', I and the rest of the world just shake our head at such a weird way of thinking.

There is a real problem and this line of thinking causes it. Until it stops, you will never stop the killing.

 

[Prokofievian]

Gun availability is definitely a factor. Do you think there would be more or less school shootings with lesser gun availability?

Also, I'm going to frown at making blanket statements of Asia and Africa, as if they're countries.

You cannot pick and choose. Either Africa is a contiguous region whose rains you may bless, despite the aridity of vast swathes of its terrain, or Africa is a conglomeration of countries.

 

[tonni]

I mentioned africa and asia because had i mentioned a country. I would have been told the size and population of america and how you cant compare it to uk or ghana for example

Sorry for being a wiseass then

You cannot pick and choose. Either Africa is a contiguous region whose rains you may bless, despite the aridity of vast swathes of its terrain, or Africa is a conglomeration of countries.

How am I picking and choosing?

 

[Phelly2]

The case that is being made is that the guns cause the danger, which means if they can successfully be weaned out then you won't need them for self defence. I don't know if you have travelled much of the developed world, but it is very much an America only problem. Secondly, while I do understand when you want to ask is it 'worth its cost in freedom', I and the rest of the world just shake our head at such a weird way of thinking.

There is a real problem and this line of thinking causes it. Until it stops, you will never stop the killing.

I get what you’re saying and it’s a valid argument, I just disagree with the premise that Gun control will bring the US murder rate anywhere close to in line with the rest of the world.

As I pointed out earlier, the rest of the world has had the luxury of a comparatively minuscule murder rate even BEFORE they instituted gun control.

Then consider that countries who instituted gun control recently saw no better murder rate declines as the gun happy US. This calls into question the idea that gun control had any effect on murder rates.

Then consider that there are more guns in the US than people, calling into question whether it’s even possible to ban guns at all.

And lastly, remember that today’s buzz word in the American gun control crowd is “assault weapons” which account for about 1 to 2 percent of gun homicides. Their entire policy prescription is based on the preferred gun of mass shooters, as opposed to what would actually have a marked effect on murder rates.

 

[Prokofievian]

How am I picking and choosing?

I was attempting to leverage Africa by Toto's recent surge in popularity into a joke.

In the wake of this failed attempt at humour, I'm gonna take some time to do the things I never had....like have funny jokes.

 

[tonni]

Everyone wants to stop school shootings. You think I don’t? This isn’t a question of whether I support school shootings. It’s a question of whether the proposed solution (banning rifles) is worth its cost in freedom.

My argument is that taking rifles away will not even come close to solving the problem, and the obvious next step is further restrictions, which again, will not solve the problem. And that cycle will continue and continue until we have no means of self defense, in a country of high murder rates.

What's the cost of freedom and how does it weigh against innocent people getting shot up at school? Serious question. You mention self defense, but you don't really need a rifle or a whole closet full of them to defend yourself, no?

There are already regulations on guns, too.

But here’s a question: when is it enough? What’s the death count we’re willing to live with? 3,500? 350? 0?

To be honest, I'm not educated on the pros and cons of public swimming pools.

Edit: oh you emphasized ISIS. My bad.
That’s a fair point. Terror attacks are weapons of mass EFFECT. they’re designed to scare more people than they kill. (Thus, affecting political strategies like “get out of Syria!”)

You could say school shootings are also terror attacks. But as I said before, I’m not in favor of school shootings. I’m just against the currently proposed solutions.

I'm happy you're not in favor of school shootings. What's your proposed solution? Btw I don't think banning guns is the answer, but gun accessibility needs to be looked at.