Mass Shootings, Guns, and the US

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The Columbine Massacre was eventually stopped by some students rushing the attacker.

My obsessive need to correct mistakes just had to mention that this is wrong. The Columbine Massacre ended after the TWO shooters killed themselves. Other than that though, I pretty much agree. I really hope that if I were put in this kind of situation I would be able to do something instead of just panic.

Originally posted by Loon3yToOns
you people just dont seem to get it ... do you not read ? or are only capable of reading what's carefully written ?
it says 11 out of 16 aren't in the usa ... but those 11 are spread around the globe, its not 1 country vs the states, its the whole world vs the states (when we talk statistics) while 5 out of eleven are in the usa so overall, YES its most often seen in the usa.... learn to read.
so there is say .. 4 in australia.....3 in britain 4 in germany and that's your eleven...USA still takes the crown on this one ... not by much, but it does .... so yeah ... learn to understand what you're reading.

Except that Australia, Britain, and Germany all have very strict anti-gun laws, and they each have a much smaller population than the US, and they each have as many of these occurrences!

The UK has 1/5th the population of the US, and it has extremely strict gun laws, and it has 3 shooting sprees compared to only 5 in the US.

Australia has 1/15th the population of the US, and it has extremely strict gun laws, and it has 4 shooting sprees, almost the same as the US!

Germany has 1/4th the population.... you get the idea.

It is not the US against the world, it is the US, with the an EXTREMELY LARGER amount of gun ownership per capita, off the charts ownership per capita, 2 million new guns sold EVERY YEAR just in the US, and yet, our gun crime rate per capita is right on par with the rest of the world, and our shooting spree per capita is FAR LESS than countries with tighter controls.

MORE GUNS = LESS SPREES

How stupid must one be, to think, he has the right to bring his guns to town?

Take away every idiots gun and you have a more peaceful world.

Only idiots will disagree with that.

And idiots are the one who suddenly shoot at innocent people.

You say, you won't?

That's why YOU are dangerous! And that's why YOU fear to lose your weapons.

YOU are the one. And you can shout me down as long as you want. YOU accept, that killing people is your right. YOU are a danger for every civil human and for every little child.

If you are not living in the wildernesss, YOU are simply a threat to YOUR neighbours and their children.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

Yep, "no gun" policies only apply to law-abiding citizens and people that follow rules. Kind of ass-backwards if you ask me. Putting a sign up saying "no guns" isn't going to stop a criminal, but it is going to make sure all the victims are easy targets.

I ignore such signs.

sadly in michigan thats the exemption to the stand your ground law. If you ignore the sign youre a tresspasser. I ignore em too....lmao dont tell the county

reply to post by Saya13


reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Thanks guys, you're both right.

What is the story of a shooter I remember where the shooter was taken down by a male student in the cafeteria? Or was that Columbine, but he just wasn't successful? I have a vague memory of the story, but I can't place the event?

reply to post by getreadyalready


that wasn't my point and im not arguing but the way its worded makes people read it a certain way and make a certain decision regarding this, not necessarily correct. i stand by my statement, you CANNOT compare the states with the whole world since the states is a country, you have to compare it either with another country or break them all into brackets (which you have) hence why the statement of 11 out of 15 havent happened in america is a little misleading since people will think that there are 11 other countries that have higher rates of "mass gunning" that's what i was trying to explain i dont know if i did a good job or not, but i know im correct.

Originally posted by Siddharta
How stupid must one be, to think, he has the right to bring his guns to town?

Take away every idiots gun and you have a more peaceful world.

Only idiots will disagree with that.

And idiots are the one who suddenly shoot at innocent people.

You say, you won't?

That's why YOU are dangerous! And that's why YOU fear to lose your weapons.

YOU are the one. And you can shout me down as long as you want. YOU accept, that killing people is your right. YOU are a danger for every civil human and for every little child.

If you are not living in the wildernesss, YOU are simply a threat to YOUR neighbours and their children.

You sir, are no student of history, or reality...or to put in your terminology.

You are a f***ing moron! If you really believe this way.

My reaction to this event is that while I have been a gun owner since before I was an adult, I've been a procrastinator about getting my CCL. Next week that will be different. I'm not someone that wants to go around being Rambo, but I do not want to be someone who has to watch my family or even strangers die around me knowing I could have done something to try to stop it. Doesn't matter if I'm successful....just matters that I'm able to legally try.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


Nice to see, that my word touched you, shark.

Originally posted by Siddharta
How stupid must one be, to think, he has the right to bring his guns to town?

Take away every idiots gun and you have a more peaceful world.

Only idiots will disagree with that.

And idiots are the one who suddenly shoot at innocent people.

You say, you won't?

That's why YOU are dangerous! And that's why YOU fear to lose your weapons.

YOU are the one. And you can shout me down as long as you want. YOU accept, that killing people is your right. YOU are a danger for every civil human and for every little child.

If you are not living in the wildernesss, YOU are simply a threat to YOUR neighbours and their children.

Killing people who forfeit the right to live is my right, yes. Forfeiting the right to live would include things like shooting up a #ing theatre or trying to kill me. I almost beat a man to death once but stopped....

My guns are primarily for mountain lions and coyotes. And deer

reply to post by Siddharta

Only idiots will disagree with that.

When all else fails, resort to a Logical Fallacy.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them an idiot, and I won't waste time "shouting you down," because your own argument is baseless. Show any statistics where banning guns reduced crime. For that matter show any statistic where banning anything reduced the crime of that thing. Doesn't work for drugs, doesn't work for prostitution, and doesn't work for guns.

IN FACT, if you look at statistics, you'll see exactly the opposite. Banning prostitution normally results in an increase in crimes against women, and banning drugs usually results in an increase in violent crimes overall.

reply to post by Valhall


You very much would be simply killed by someone who had the same arguments as you for running around with a gun.

You would not have the opportunity to be the saviour, when they shoot at simple people like you and me. You only could try to make it more difficult for them to have a weapon to kill you, while you simply want to watch a film.

But too many here think it is their basic right to have a weapon to kill you. So your chances are low.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Saya13

 

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Thanks guys, you're both right.

What is the story of a shooter I remember where the shooter was taken down by a male student in the cafeteria? Or was that Columbine, but he just wasn't successful? I have a vague memory of the story, but I can't place the event?

I think you may be thinking of the 1998 incident at Thurston High School (Kip Kinkel). An injured student tackled Kinkel in the cafeteria while he was trying to reload. I believe then a few other students helped to hold him down until police arrived.

reply to post by getreadyalready


We lived without guns for a very long time in Europe. And I think, the statistics will tell you, we had little problems. Even with the distrubing shootings in Germany and Norway, you are still leading. And maybe some of you even want to act to stay the leading nation in this.

Originally posted by Loon3yToOns
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

that wasn't my point and im not arguing but the way its worded makes people read it a certain way and make a certain decision regarding this, not necessarily correct. i stand by my statement, you CANNOT compare the states with the whole world since the states is a country, you have to compare it either with another country or break them all into brackets (which you have) hence why the statement of 11 out of 15 havent happened in america is a little misleading since people will think that there are 11 other countries that have higher rates of "mass gunning" that's what i was trying to explain i dont know if i did a good job or not, but i know im correct.

That was a result of me posting the thread quickly on behalf of another ATSer that didn't have access at the moment.

To be honest, I would LOVE to break it down country by country and show crime data per capita, but I don't really have the time either. I've done some of the preliminary work in posts on other threads. Of course the US has higher overall gun crimes than states like the UK or Canada, but then again, over half of our gun crimes are suicides. When you take those out of the mix, we are just about even with other countries. Then, when you look at overall crime rates including rapes, burglaries, and assaults, you find the US is WAY down the list per capita.

It is a difficult task because crimes are recorded and reported differently from country to country, but the US does not top any of the lists, it is typically well down into the middle of the pack when looking at overall violent crime.

Take the guns away, and the criminals just find another weapon, and the more vulnerable among the population are just left more defenseless.

Here is a more eloquent way to put it....... (damn character count, see next post...)

Why the Gun is Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

reply to post by phroziac


You are the one we should be looking at.

I just posted on another thread......

the alleged suicide bomber in Bulgaria and now this shooter in Colorado both had dyed their hair red........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by Siddharta
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

We lived without guns for a very long time in Europe. And I think, the statistics will tell you, we had little problems. Even with the distrubing shootings in Germany and Norway, you are still leading. And maybe some of you even want to act to stay the leading nation in this.

What version of history are you reading?

Western Europe Countries are statistically better in Intentional Homicide rates, but once again this includes suicides for the US, and it doesn't include that in many other countries. That doubles the rate reported. Even in this number the US is very far down the list behind all of Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe.

If you look at THis CHart you will see the US has about double the TOTAL CRIME compared to the UK, but we have 5 times the population! In other words, when you look at crimes per capita, the UK is TWICE AS BAD as the US! Germany is similar in number to the UK.

There just aren't any statistics, or history to back up what you are saying. You are repeating anti-gun talking points that are not based in any known fact, and they never have been!

Really? There must be a connection!

And we at the three letters organizations are just watching, how often you masturbate. We fools!