another student shot in school

haffajappa

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

unsung wrote:

Another obvious kneejerk reaction; assign blame to the gun.

well the gun helps, does it not???

i am sure nothing would have happened if the kid went up to the other one and just yelled "BANG BANG!!!!!!!".....

A knife would have done the same thing, so would a bat, so would countless other items. The point is a gun is merely a tool. The person is a murderer. The person is at fault, not the gun.

Gun bans don't work, not to mention they are unconstitutional. Should a student have a gun is not the question, he should not have had it in school. The article doesn't mention the specific gun either so I cannot comment on if he legally owned it.

People need to stop using tragic situations to promote their political agendas.

Can someone in middle school legally own a gun even? :shock:

haffajappa

unsung wrote:

Oh and as far as other countries having less gun crimes, please site examples for conversation sake. I'm sure most do but comparing populations should be noted as well.

Well when you compare countries you don't compare entire populations but you compare per so many people, usually per 100,000 people... So the population is irrelevant.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide/ Suicide/ Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98/ 5.92 / 0.36

Italy (1997) 0.81/ 1.1/ 0.07

Switzerland (1998) 0.50/ 5.8/ 0.10

Canada (2002) 0.4 / 2.0/ 0.04

Finland (2003) 0.35/ 4.45/ 0.10

Australia (2001) 0.24/ 1.34 0.10

France (2001) 0.21 / 3.4/ 0.49

England/Wales (2002) 0.15/ 0.2/ 0.03

Scotland (2002) 0.06 / 0.2 / 0.02

Japan (2002) 0.02 / 0.04/ 0


Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

Keeping in mind i've just done a quick search, but this site seems to have cited their sources so I didn't search any further.

rebornFixer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

thanks for the kneejerk reaction to defend the murder weapon... :roll:

I don't think he was "defending the weapon", which in any event is not a sentient entity and is therefore incapable of owning the guilt or responsibility in this situation. I believe in some reasonable gun controls (just so we're clear), but his point was that the genuine causes of this murder lie not with the tool itself but elsewhere. I agree with this point.

_

haffajappa wrote:

unsung wrote:

Oh and as far as other countries having less gun crimes, please site examples for conversation sake. I'm sure most do but comparing populations should be noted as well.

Well when you compare countries you don't compare entire populations but you compare per so many people, usually per 100,000 people... So the population is irrelevant.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide/ Suicide/ Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98/ 5.92 / 0.36

Italy (1997) 0.81/ 1.1/ 0.07

Switzerland (1998) 0.50/ 5.8/ 0.10

Canada (2002) 0.4 / 2.0/ 0.04

Finland (2003) 0.35/ 4.45/ 0.10

Australia (2001) 0.24/ 1.34 0.10

France (2001) 0.21 / 3.4/ 0.49

England/Wales (2002) 0.15/ 0.2/ 0.03

Scotland (2002) 0.06 / 0.2 / 0.02

Japan (2002) 0.02 / 0.04/ 0


Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

Keeping in mind i've just done a quick search, but this site seems to have cited their sources so I didn't search any further.

Thanks for posting.

_

rebornFixer wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

thanks for the kneejerk reaction to defend the murder weapon... :roll:

I don't think he was "defending the weapon", which in any event is not a sentient entity and is therefore incapable of owning the guilt or responsibility in this situation. I believe in some reasonable gun controls (just so we're clear), but his point was that the genuine causes of this murder lie not with the tool itself but elsewhere. I agree with this point.

Can we all agree that gun violence requires BOTH a gun and a person to pull the trigger?

rebornFixer

scb wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

thanks for the kneejerk reaction to defend the murder weapon... :roll:

I don't think he was "defending the weapon", which in any event is not a sentient entity and is therefore incapable of owning the guilt or responsibility in this situation. I believe in some reasonable gun controls (just so we're clear), but his point was that the genuine causes of this murder lie not with the tool itself but elsewhere. I agree with this point.

Can we all agree that gun violence requires BOTH a gun and a person to pull the trigger?

Certainly. Without the gun, said violence would be of some other sort. I think the fundamental issue pertains to whether having greater access to guns actually leads to more violence, or a greater level of violence relative to what would be there without access. This is actually a very hard question to answer, even though many people who dislike guns find it super-easy to jump to an "obvious" conclusion.

aerial

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how in the world did a thread about someone getting murdered at a school morph into a discussion about prayer in school and the need for grandparents to be involved in a kid's life? can we PLEASE try to stay on topic here??

does anyone have a link about this story? i would like to read up on it because i am curious about the facts in this case, not people's hypotheses on why bothering god via prayer in school could have prevented it, or that the bullet was in some way not responsible for anything....seeing a sign with the ten commandments is not going to make people pause and think about their actions, its just like how every quarter mile there is a speed limit sign on the highway, people see them and just ignore them and do whatever speed they want to do anyway...[/quote]
Thats my point some follow the rules (values, morals) some don't....but if they don't know what the rules are What Then?.....Don't know about the rest of you but I do the speed limit

gimmesometruth27

scb wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

thanks for the kneejerk reaction to defend the murder weapon... :roll:

I don't think he was "defending the weapon", which in any event is not a sentient entity and is therefore incapable of owning the guilt or responsibility in this situation. I believe in some reasonable gun controls (just so we're clear), but his point was that the genuine causes of this murder lie not with the tool itself but elsewhere. I agree with this point.

Can we all agree that gun violence requires BOTH a gun and a person to pull the trigger?

no we can't, because according to some people the gun can not bear any of the blame....people kill people, NOT the gun... :roll:

gimmesometruth27

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how in the world did a thread about someone getting murdered at a school morph into a discussion about prayer in school and the need for grandparents to be involved in a kid's life? can we PLEASE try to stay on topic here??

does anyone have a link about this story? i would like to read up on it because i am curious about the facts in this case, not people's hypotheses on why bothering god via prayer in school could have prevented it, or that the bullet was in some way not responsible for anything....seeing a sign with the ten commandments is not going to make people pause and think about their actions, its just like how every quarter mile there is a speed limit sign on the highway, people see them and just ignore them and do whatever speed they want to do anyway...[/quote]
Thats my point some follow the rules (values, morals) some don't....but if they don't know what the rules are What Then?.....Don't know about the rest of you but I do the speed limit

what are you even talking about? so posting the ten commandments is posting the only rules? i can guarantee you this, if a person wants to kill someone, showing them the "thou shalt not kill" commandment is not going to stop them...

rebornFixer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Can we all agree that gun violence requires BOTH a gun and a person to pull the trigger?

no we can't, because according to some people the gun can not bear any of the blame....people kill people, NOT the gun... :roll:[/quote]

I don't know why you're using the eye-rolling emoticon, dude ... Its a true statement. A gun without someone pulling the trigger sits on a rack somewhere or in some redneck's truck, totally harmless. I get your point, I think: Without guns, there'd be no gun violence. Granted. That doesn't mean that just holding a weapon suddenly draws up or manufactures all these homicidal urges, however. I think sometimes that the issue of gun control gets oversimplified, to the effect of "no guns = no violence", which is false. Its almost as if a total gun ban would magically convert all these homidical individuals into flower children. Underneath a proximal cause like weapon access are all kinds of psychological and sociological causes of violence, and if you ask me, fixing these is going to be the only way to reduce overall violence levels.

gimmesometruth27

"rebornFixer wrote:

I don't know why you're using the eye-rolling emoticon, dude ... Its a true statement. A gun without someone pulling the trigger sits on a rack somewhere or in some redneck's truck, totally harmless. I get your point, I think: Without guns, there'd be no gun violence. Granted. That doesn't mean that just holding a weapon suddenly draws up or manufactures all these homicidal urges, however. I think sometimes that the issue of gun control gets oversimplified, to the effect of "no guns = no violence", which is false. Its almost as if a total gun ban would magically convert all these homidical individuals into flower children. Underneath a proximal cause like weapon access are all kinds of psychological and sociological causes of violence, and if you ask me, fixing these is going to be the only way to reduce overall violence levels.

yeah guns don't kill people....the same way the guillotine did not kill people...the same way the iron maiden did not kill people..

i don't know how you can argue that without a gun school shootings would not happen, because without the gun, no school shooting. how difficult is that to comprehend?

someone said stabbings would be more frequent, but as a student of psychology it is much easier for people to stand back and shoot than it is to get right up on someone and stab them. stabbing is much more of a personal way to kill someone. same as asphixiation. many times when you kill out of hate you strangle or stab people, not shoot them. that is just the way it happens usually. anybody can pull a trigger, it takes a special person to stab someone and take a life that way....look at the studies during WWI and WWII where soldiers could shoot and kill and detatch themselves from the situation and get over it, but it was much more difficult to get over killing someone with a bayonette or in some other hand to hand situation...

rebornFixer

If you're indeed a student of psychology, gimmesometruth, it should not be hard for you to concede that 1) violence has intrapsychic and social causes, 2) that violence is determined by a complex set of variables and cannot be reduced down to a simple unicausal explanation like access to firearms, and 3) while guns do create psychological distance in a military context, statistics show that physical assaults with knives, blunt objects, and fists/feet are FAR more numerous than shootings, even in a "gun culture" like the U.S.

keeponrockin

aerial wrote:

Thats my point some follow the rules (values, morals) some don't....but if they don't know what the rules are What Then?.....Don't know about the rest of you but I do the speed limit

I grew up in an atheist household... I've yet to kill someone, yet to steal.

And I'd like you to answer my other question. You said that there's been more school shootings, and tied in the fact of the removal of prayer in 1962. The march on Washington happened in 1963. Therefore, could one logically assume (from what you said) that this is because prayer was removed from schools?

rebornFixer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what does race have to do with it when it is usually the white kids that go into schools and start shooting people??

While its true that most school shooters are White or Asian, the increases in gun crimes that have been observed (off-and-on) since the early 90s have been driven largely by the so-called inner city youths that unsung was referring to. I prefer a sociopolitical explanation to a racial one, given that skin color should have absolutely nothing to do with violent behavior, logically-speaking.

gimmesometruth27

rebornFixer wrote:

If you're indeed a student of psychology, gimmesometruth, it should not be hard for you to concede that 1) violence has intrapsychic and social causes, 2) that violence is determined by a complex set of variables and cannot be reduced down to a simple unicausal explanation like access to firearms, and 3) while guns do create psychological distance in a military context, statistics show that physical assaults with knives, blunt objects, and fists/feet are FAR more numerous than shootings, even in a "gun culture" like the U.S.

i am not arguing against that. i am talking about in general, without access to handguns this crime would not have happened.

yeah so punches and getting in a schoolyard fight rarely causes a death. in this case, the gun was what caused the kid to die. period, end of story. people have violent urges, but if the kid did not have the gun would the victim still be alive today? i would say yes.

did the gun contribute to this crime yes or no??

gimmesometruth27

rebornFixer wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what does race have to do with it when it is usually the white kids that go into schools and start shooting people??

While its true that most school shooters are White or Asian, the increases in gun crimes that have been observed (off-and-on) since the early 90s have been driven largely by the so-called inner city youths that unsung was referring to. I prefer a sociopolitical explanation to a racial one, given that skin color should have absolutely nothing to do with violent behavior, logically-speaking.

is this the same logic you apply to isreali killing palestinians in such disproportionate numbers, that the guns and bombs and airplanes and tanks have nothing to do with it??

rebornFixer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what does race have to do with it when it is usually the white kids that go into schools and start shooting people??

While its true that most school shooters are White or Asian, the increases in gun crimes that have been observed (off-and-on) since the early 90s have been driven largely by the so-called inner city youths that unsung was referring to. I prefer a sociopolitical explanation to a racial one, given that skin color should have absolutely nothing to do with violent behavior, logically-speaking.

is this the same logic you apply to isreali killing palestinians in such disproportionate numbers, that the guns and bombs and airplanes and tanks have nothing to do with it??

Weren't you just the guy scolding people for dragging this thread off-topic?

gimmesometruth27

rebornFixer wrote:

Weren't you just the guy scolding people for dragging this thread off-topic?

yes i was. now are you gonna answer my question or not?

rebornFixer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am not arguing against that. i am talking about in general, without access to handguns this crime would not have happened.

yeah so punches and getting in a schoolyard fight rarely causes a death. in this case, the gun was what caused the kid to die. period, end of story. people have violent urges, but if the kid did not have the gun would the victim still be alive today? i would say yes.

did the gun contribute to this crime yes or no??

Of course. It was a gun crime, and like someone else said earlier in the thread, who actually opposes the idea of keeping guns out of kid's hands? I don't. I do believe in gun laws that work, including safe storage laws, the need for gun permits before a sale is completed, etc. What I don't believe in is the simple argument that guns are the main problem here. Guns have NO power to create a kid who is so distressed and pissed off that he decides to go shoot up a school. Sure, I am on board with the idea of making guns less available to these sorts of kids. This would save lives. I also think that these people need clinical help, too. Taking away the gun would save lives (a hugely important goal) but you'd still be left with 1) a disordered kid and 2) the social circumstances that promote the creation of more disordered kids.

rebornFixer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

Weren't you just the guy scolding people for dragging this thread off-topic?

yes i was. now are you gonna answer my question or not?

I responded to your other post. The Israel-Palestine issue doesn't not warrant a response here.