http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...chool_shooting
To me, it's very sad that we've come to almost expect and anticipate violence in schools, though not at this level.
Take care all.
Printable View
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...chool_shooting
To me, it's very sad that we've come to almost expect and anticipate violence in schools, though not at this level.
Take care all.
*sigh* I remember when my history teacher talked about how back when he went to school in Michigan kids not only got the first day on hunting season off, they would actually take their rifles and ammunition to school to be stored in the principle's office. How times have changed. Its bad enough the the people had to die, now paranoia will be increased more and more (if that's possible). In other words if I say the word "die" at school I will more then likely be maced.
Indeed, there will certainly be a frenzy of paranoia, though I think its been that way since Columbine. Sure, it can be justified within reason, but it does get out of hand very quickly if not balanced with a dose of common sense.
Take care all.
I work for some people doing a psychological study of violent teenage criminals. The overall crime rate for high school aged people is at a 30 year low right now. My boss says that the "teenage crime epidemic" and "school safety epidemic" is entirely invented by the media, or rather by people's perception of the media. This is a non-issue. This is an example of something no one needs to hear about. People lack the perspective to handle or even understand this kind of news.
As Dr. Unne said, the amount of deaths country-wide has been decreasing over the years, even the Columbine year was much less than the deaths overall in many school years, actually by quite a large margin. Not to say that this wasn't horrific, of course.
This just pisses me off. Some idiot killed people in school, and because the media is exploiting it for money, people like me are going to get sh*t for this. I have another week of spring break. hopefully people have forgotten about this incident before I go back to school. I really just don't want to hear it.
Unne - that information is really interesting. Im going to take your word for it an assume it's true, because it's good news. Im sick of the youth being labeled as violent and dangerous when that is so obviously untrue.
Hmm, that's fascinating Dr Unne. It would seem my statement at the top of this thread is based on what the media has made this out to be rather than the reality. Thanks for the insight as always!
Take care all.
Interesting, Unne... this must be a new one, because it goes against the general theme of results in this type of study. Could you give me a little bit more details? You know, such as regions studied, sample sources and quantities, and variables. I don't trust any study without examining the source behind it. Not that I don't believe you, but a study can show anything the creators want it to, and it's up to the public to stay informed on this stuff.
Sensationalism sells. What else are we supposed to hear about, good things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Barry Glassner, the author of Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things (which was the basis for the documentary Bowling for Columbine) is a Professor of Sociology at my school and he gave us a lecture a few weeks ago on this very issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Basically, while all the statistics show that school violence has been on a steady decline in the last few decades, the media jumps on these isolated incidents in order to claim that there is an epidemic of teenage violence.
I do believe that the media makes waaaay too big a deal about this "epidemic" of school violence. BUT, I disagree with the idea that the media shouldn't report this at all.
Of course we need to hear about these things and yes it is an issue. What the media needs to stop doing is misdirecting the public's attention to this idea of killer teenagers and instead focus on the real issues like gun control.
The epidemic is a fabrication, but something is obviously wrong when a kid (who had access to THREE guns!) goes on a shooting rampage.
I think the media is most to blame for this. The kid was probably just copying what he saw on the news.
But they'll probably try to blame Marilyn Manson. Again.
Nope, don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
True, true. I can't belive it's so easy to get your hands on a gun in the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
That killer guy seemed to have alot of psychological... trouble. That's also very sad.
Okay. This is now the exception rather than the rule and it has been for quite some time. The media just sucks and has nothing better to do. They control the masses because the masses are widely uninformed about such things because it is the media's job to inform us. One of the many reasons I want to move out of this country.
That's all well and good, the media may make too much noise about such things, but honestly, that's not what this thread should be about. I understand school violence has decreased, but that doesn't make this instance any less appauling.
I've never been to Red Lake, or any area around there, but I'm disgusted with the person who did this. The fact that he grinned and waved while doing this, is terrible.
I'm sorry, but this is a horrible, horrible thing to happen anywhere, be it a school, a store, a bank, or whatnot. I hope the families of those who died find some form of comfort.
Very well spoken.
Take care all.
The media keeps reporting that he grinned and waved, but a facial expression can be easily misinterpreted. This is obviously another way that the media is going to go about demonizing the bastard who did this.Quote:
I've never been to Red Lake, or any area around there, but I'm disgusted with the person who did this. The fact that he grinned and waved while doing this, is terrible.
Now I do no agree with what the kid did, obviusly. But the whol "grinning and waving" thing is simply a peice of information that SHOULD NOT have been reported on. They just want to make someone else look wrose, because when someone else looks worse, thier ratings get better.
Tragic but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
I remember on Have I Got News for You some time ago, there was a report on child soldiers. I can't remember it word-for-word, but it went along these lines:
"The report has said that there is an estimated 300,000 girls and boys under the age of eighteen in possession of a firearm. Luckily most of them are safely locked away in American schools."
Funny? Yep, but still tragically true.
You do realize that there really ARE child soldiers in many African countries, do you not? And when I say child soldier, I really DO mean child soldiers. Anywhere from ages six to seventeen. But that never gets reported on the news. It's definetly not as important as over exagerating the hostile attitude of the American youth.Quote:
I remember on Have I Got News for You some time ago, there was a report on child soldiers.
Hmm... maybe this deserves a thread of it's own.
Of course now they'll look for a scapegoat. "Oh Marylin Manson told him to" Or more likely "This boy played Halo, there for it brainwashes children to be killers, HALO IS TEH EVUL !!!!" :sweatdrop Wonderful, I get to listen to my hobby demonized some more.
School shootings were happening before Columbine. I would tell yall my theory on why they decided to do something aobut the school shooting issue, but I fear getting banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
I am not suprised at all. It was a matter of time before something like this happened again. That doesn't feel that I don't feel bad about it, but I am very numb to this kind of stuff these days.
The boy who did this was a diehard Neo-Nazi fanatic , hailing from a Native-American community.The area is one of the poorest reserves where 4 in 10 adults are unemployed and grinding poverty is rife ... it's reasonable to suggest that he turned to extreme violence as a means of shutting himself away from the misery of his home life - not because he was into Marilyn Manson , or violent video games !
I read a book called No Easy Answers, written by a friend of the Columbine gunmen. Basically, his point was that we should examine the underlying causes, not the tragedies themselves, and I agree.
I personally don't think it should be classified entirely as a "school shooting" so much as a rampage that spilled onto school grounds. He started with his grandpa. That suggests he wanted to take out the old man, and once he did, decided he might as well get even with a few choice people who happened to be at school. If he'd known where some of his tormentors were and it'd been after school, I'd bet money he would have simply gone to their houses and started shooting. It's impossible to know exactly what was running through his head, but I'm betting he knew that, since they went to his school and were there at the moment, he should attack the school--the "stronghold of his enemy". I'm assuming blood-lust took over once he arrived.
Obviously, there's plenty of assumptions in this post, but my point is that you should look at what pissed him off in the first place, and remember that it wasn't just people at school that he shot. The media better not do with this what they did with Columbine. :grumble:
That is horrible. Makes me kind of afraid. The guy who did it, I saw a picture of him in the newspaper. He looked so innocent and happy, like one of those cute cuddly kids.
And he was this guy who dressed all in black, admired Hitler and called himself the "Angel of Death" in German. :( And on one hand I feel sorry for him, because his father comitted suicide and his mum is in a hospital.
Methinks he was unstable, unhinged. I wish there was a way to help people like this, a more effective and better way than there is now.
I don't understand... Wasn't the kid Native American himself? If so, how can he be a white supremist?
Hypocrisy is cheap.
Wel there are times when people go crazy and decide to kill every living thing they see in front of them. The media tells the suburbanites that its violent video games and rock music.So suburban parents go on a rampage on forcing there kids to listen to pop music and play teletubbies video games.I'm not trying to make a joke but its sad when a person decides to take another human's life.A human that kills other humans just for the blood lust of it is one crazy person.
One big problem is that instead of blaming this on the kid, or the parents, people all too often blame this on the guns they used. I have access to more than half a dozen guns, and I've never taken them out of my home (in America, anyway) with the intent to harm another person with them. Gun Control is a non-issue in these cases, because the people that follow gun control laws don't commit crimes with guns. (When was the last time you saw a street murder with a registered handgun?)
You can't say the availability of weapons doesn't play a part.
IMO, the only people who should have the right to own a weapon is those who hunt.
Having a gun in your home will not make it safer.
I am not so sure of that... guns in a sense can act as a type of security system.. just as dogs can. If a criminal knows you have many dogs, the criminal is more likely to go elsewhere. A guard dog is considered as dangerous if not more dangerous then a loaded gun.. so now we can not have dogs?Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
Basically I find it absurb.. yes we need to keep guns away from those who will misuse them... but we shouldn't deny them to hte general public.
How likely is it that the person who breaks in to someone's house knows exactly how many guns the victim has?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Plus, if you're home when someone breaks into your house,
do you think you're safer if you walk up to the burgular with a loaded gun,
then if you stay in bed or wherever you might be.
A dog is never more dangerous then a gun and I do not believe that
people who train their dogs to attack people should be allowed to have dogs.
In most countries in Europe there are nowhere near as many guns circulating
and there are also nowhere near as many gun related crimes here.
Handing out tools of murder to everyone is not the most effective way to prevent people from killing eachother.
Killing is the purpose of a gun and that's what it will be used for.
I believe that all people should have the right to own a gun. (And not jsut a handgun, assault rifles as well.) This is because if civilians have easy access to military equipment, the people will have an easier time revolting against the government if the government were to ever step out of line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
well that aint' exactly why I think people should be allowed guns... although it is a valid point... I just never really thought about... and haven't you ever heard of the legendary "peaceful revolution"... wait.. one has never happened has it?(this is just a quick run through.. .but I think all revolutions had some violence on at least one end).
As for owning a handgun or rifle in the house and the criminal knowing.. I guess it depends on where you live and who the criminal is. Just about everyone in my town knows who has a gun and who doesn't, so a criminal here is more likely to know.
As for dogs... Ummm... They are extremly dangerous, particually when trained. Some of those things are fast... true if you had a handgun or rifle you could easily take it out at a range before it got to you... but if it gets to you, you could easily be dead.
And me.. I personally would shoot Mr. burgler.. .after all he broke in, he broke the law, and I was defending myself. I would probably feel likeafterwards, but better him then me. Not to mention I wouldn't be afraid to shoot him through a door or something if he was entering the room I was in... anyone with any reason to be there would either knock or call out.
and one more disclaimer... I put guns that aren't neccesarily as leathal in the same boat.. basically tranq guns. that is what I personally want to own.. a big old tranq shooter... I would just hope it puts them out quick enough that I don't get shot... and even if I did get shot.. at least I was defending my own.
Tranqs wouldn't put a person down instantly like they do in the movies, unless it's extremely high powered, then it'd probably kill 'em anyway, it just wouldn't be instant. Plus, they're inaccurate as hell.
Most people don't know about this... There's at least one county in Florida that requires ALL of its residencies to possess firearms, within the home. Houses, apartments, whatever, they gotta have a gun of some sort. Every one of 'em. And do you know what happened when that particular law was passed? The home invasion and violent crime rates in that particular county plummetted, and rose in all its surrounding counties. Because nobody wants to rob a house when they know somebody's got a gun in there.
I adhere to the fact that only in extremely rare instances are violent crimes committed with firearms that are registered to the suspect. Which means more gun control laws won't help anything. Enforce the laws we do have, and try to get weapons off the STREETS, not out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Change positions for a minute. You're a burgalar. You got two houses, late at night, both are occupied but the people are sleeping. Which one do you choose--the pansy with a baseball bat in his closet and a butcher knife in the kitchen, or the guy with half an arsenal? You'd choose the weaker of the two defenses, obviously. So you go in, and surprise surprise, he's awake waiting for you with a pistol in his hand anyway. Do you try to assault him, tie him up and steal all his crap like you had originally planned, or run like hell and hope he don't pop a cap in yo ass? Or if you're the homeowner, would you rather somebody come into your house and look down the muzzle of a 12-gauge, or would you want to come after him with a rolling pin? And don't try to say "well the robber wouldn't hurt anybody, he just wants to rob me blind and get away so he can buy bread for his family."
By the way, did I mention that more people are killed every year in car crashes than are killed by guns? Many times more? Guess those evil cars, gotta take 'em away from everybody.
Yes I know tranqs don't put people out right away.. but it should at least mess wiht there aim.. adn I can go run and hide... as for inaccuracy I didn't know about that.. also with a high powered tranq they at least have more of a chance then surviving a bulllet to the head or heart(unless they are wearing a bullet proof vest and even then it may punch through).
Also with EVERYONE having a gun it may not a super differenece.. it would likely go down but it woudln't stop it.. if I were desperate I would still try it.. but it would likely stop those who just do it for "kicks"(if people even do that anymore(i think they might.. I have heard freinds discusing such stuff.. although they only talk about doing it to each other.. sometimes surprises the parents though).)
As for cars... bah we need to make sure only responsible people get them.. that or do them with computers.computers would mandate certian laws... such as making sure you stop for a stop sign.. or keep speed limits.. and show maps... I hear there is actually some development money going into such systems.. although they won't have anywhere near the power to prevent accidents.. but it may make less likely. I beilieve the computer just give a warning light or sound when you aren't abiding.. and perhaps if law allows it they could send citations to the police.
Unfortunatly any network the computer was on would allow it to be tampered with... leaving room for hackers to REALLY cause trouble.. so the cars could not be networked, I wouldn't even trust a "secure" network for such endeavers.
Tranqs are indeed notorously inaccurate (ask anyone with the Park Service who tags animals, and see how fun it is to shoot what's essentially a modified BB-gun at an animal that can kill you without trying hard), and more importantly the drugs don't do anything until they reach the heart and the brain. Which means if you're shot with one you have at least a few seconds to react--that's enough to empty a clip, beat a skull in with a stick, or stab someone half a dozen times. If I didn't have a gun, a tranq-gun would probably be my very last choice in self-defense.
Moreover, there's two other issues with shooting an intruder. One is that gunshots are not nearly as deadly as they're made out to be--while certainly capable of killing someone, the vast majority of people shot do not die. The second is that if someone's breaking into my house, I don't care if they die. They took their chances, and I'd certainly rather see Dave Allen with a bullet in his skull than Polly Klauss dead.
Moreover, there is a place where everyone has a gun-Kennesaw, Georgia, where every citizen is required to own a firearm (although citizens may obtain a deferrment based on personal or religious objection). Crime is way, way down in Kennesaw.
And as for countries in Europe, cops here in the US are sending their old bullet-proof vests to England, because they desperately need them out there--even though it's illegal to own guns in England. Funny, how criminals break the law like that....
Hmm.. I would have to research tranqs a bit more.. but from what I had heard is if you take a large dose of tranqs you couldn't hit anything anyways(it would mess with your head too much). although emptying thier gun would be a problem.. I would likely shot and run..
I wish there were more ways to avoid killing someone who has a gun.. when you are defending yourself.
Anyways most of my info on tranqs comes from my mom and other poeple who have been tranqed in the hospital.. mom told me she was out before she knew what happened. Obviousally other things factor in.. that and my mom never did say exactly how long it was.. so doubtless it was a few seconds.. but since it seems to be disorienting I could hope the guy doesn't recover quick enough to unload.
Btw why can't they make tranqs more accurate?
And with our technology couldn't we make a gun that would cause incrediable disturbance(perhaps electrical?) that would temporaly or permently paralyze someone? I would still rather paralyze someone then kill them.
Rather paralyze somebody than kill them? Shoot low.
In all actuality, I believe it's something like 3% of gunshot wounds are fatal. Just like The Redneck said, the vast majority of gunshot victims do not die.
Your info on tranqs, although somewhat accurate, is out of context. You're thinking of interveinous general anesthetic. Needle goes straight into the vein, drugs only travel a foot or two to the heart. And even then, there are usually a couple seconds before it kicks in--I've heard of people being told to count down from 10 and getting to 7. But as for being stuck with a tranq, it has to get to a blood vessel first, which would usually take a few seconds before it started kicking in and distorted the intruder's aim, vision, etc. Most likely, the guy would still have at least a good five seconds to do whatever he wanted.
Tranqs are just inaccurate by nature. They've got to have enough power to penetrate, but they've also got to have a design that won't make them fall out of who/whatever is stuck. And, they've got to be heavy, because they're carrying quite a bit of drugs in 'em.
Everybody having a gun would make a difference, but it wouldn't stop home invasion crimes entirely. If everybody used their guns, that would make it stop entirely.
Records show that the easier it is to obtain a concealed weapons permit, the lower the violent crime rate is. Nobody wants to mug a guy who's got a .45 tucked away.
Sasquatch covered most of it, but let me note on the tranq-guns...
The darts are indeed heavy, plus the load is liquid--that means that any sloshing around of the liquid inside (such as the sudden movement of being fired out of a gun) can throw the dart off-course. And while you do need a lot of power to make sure it penetrates, you also can't apply too much power, because a hypodermic needle is fairly delicate, along with the other parts to it, and you don't want the thing to break from the pressures of its movement before it even reaches its target. And because of that 'sloshing' thing, you can't 'rifle' it--you can't make the dart spin, like you could with a bullet. That spinning makes a big difference in how accurate the weapon is.
On top of that, heat will usually mess with the chemical compositioin of various drugs, so you have to use an air-gun of some sort, and there's only so much power available in them.
In addition, like Sasquatch mentioned, you'd have to not just hit what you're shooting at, but hit it in a large vein (more difficult in humans, because the major veins are often covered by clothing) and it would have to stay in for a short period of time to get the stuff into their bloodstream. With an animal, a shot in the rump will get the stuff there eventually, but when someone's trying to rape or kill you, "eventually" just ain't enough.
Thanks for the info and tranqs. I definately should have done more research, thought they were slightly more effective then that.
As for paralyze vs. kill. I value life above almost all else. If you are paralyzed you can learn to live with it, and sometimes be productive depending on how paralyzed you are. just from the waste down, you could write stories, make art, make computer programs. You can still function in society. From the neck down is much more severe, but you are at least still alive, if you don't want to live that way then take your own life, I won't do it for you unless I got no other choice. Remember it isn't our body that makes us a person, it is our mind and "spirit".
Take any highschool thats ever had bullying in it and add a nation packed to the brim with guns and these things will always be able to happen. The first thing I saw when I heard about this on the news was that he had an obsession with looking up nazi sites on the inernet. You have to hand it to the press, it didnt take them long to come up with something to blame this on besides the bullying in schools and a gun littered nation. Its exactly the same as when columbine was blamed on Marilyn Manson. And just as ridiculous.
That is true bullying in school needs to be more closely watched. doesn't happen too often where I am at(at least in my general grade lvl, I don't associate too much wiht younger kids). Mainly cause if you bully, WE(myself and several other guys who are my friends, these freinds just happen to be the biggest in the school too.) will bully you right back. Not exactly the best way to solve things.. but it generally stops and prevents things. You don't risk making the biggest angry in most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destai
But yes bullying is bad... I saw one really bad example last year or the year before last. A particular kid was being picked on out the rear by the then current seniors... whom were bigger then many of the others. I did what I could to help the guy... but in an actually fight, I would get owned... I would testify for him when teachers got involved and the "bullies" tried to de-intensify what they did. but where the real problem came in is that this kid would constantly bring it on himself... he wasn't afraid to pick fights and he had a quick temper. So he often made himself look bad in others eyes. I knew him to be human, and under lots of stress... but what I could do was limited. I would help the teachers prosecute the guilty.. but too often the teachers were willing to turn a blind eye... afterall the kid had shown himself as a trouble maker so often, that not even my testimony would help much... and I am considered a really good kid.
Anyways since those particular bullies graduated the most "bullying" that I have seen is me playing tricks on Holly... but it is in fun, she does it right back to me.. and the others of us that goof with her... She once "lost" her cell phone... heh one of my friends took it and gave it to anohter freind(who would be suspected cause he is a "good" fellow), this good fellow was supposed to give it back next period, but he forgot.. and took it home with him. Holly got her phone back that same day.. but it was funny... and Holly got even the next day
:eek:
Yes I got of topic.. good and bad memories. But bullying is bad and needs to be stopped.
Right. This schmuck was being bullied in school and nothing was done about it--this means that either he deserved it, or the school should be held responsible for not recognizing the bullying. If this kid also kept looking up nazi sites, it means his parents should be held responsible for being too damned stupid to realize their kid is doing crap like that. What the little bastard needed was a good beating, maybe he'd straighten up a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destai
Making guns illegal won't do a damn thing. Drugs are illegal too, they're easier to find in a school than cigarettes are.
Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean they're the problem. The kid was the problem.
It probably ends up being a trade-off. High gun ownership will lead to a decrease in petty theft and non-violent crime, but it will increase damage dealt by nut-jobs with a grudge against society and nothing to lose.
Really? The kid who took a gun and shot 17 people was the problem all along? ...yes... it all makes sense now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Well then, make my day, Why did this happen? Did he go on a rampage because he enjoyed "quake" a little too much? In any european country or frankly in any country besides the U.S.A its extremely difficult to find a gun and if you ever found one in a highschool it would make the news. If America had the same views on guns as, oh say...any other country as developed as america then things like this would be way less likely to happen and far easier to prevent.
Well one easy way to solve the gun problem is to raise the prices of bullets.1 bullet for 5,000 bucks.That way when we see someone get shot up we can say "damn he must've done something ti get 10 bullets in him.50 grand tsk. tsk."
Seriously though i doubt this will happen.
All problems are based rootly on the human.
Guns may make it easier for violent crimes to happen, but they also can add a form of security. It isn't the gun that is wrong, it is the person using it.
However video games of shooting types and such can be an outlet rather then a cause. Some people use those games to relieve stress so that they don't get mad and attack someone. So this is also not a cause although in certian individuals in may be a minor influence.
Music, Interests, etc.. all only play minor roles, what brings this all to head is what happen's in that person's life. lets say the bullying could have pushed him to need to do something, he then relizes that yes, he can get a gun. And if he shots someone it would get rid of the people, and who can he blame? anyone different then him.
The root still goes down to the bottom, the human.
So basically if we didn't have people who are so unaccepting and nasty to others, we would likely have much less school shootings or none at all. Some people really take those school "cliques" way to seriousally. I mean "ugggh".
You folks act like people haven't been killing each other with rocks and sticks for a couple thousand years before anyone ever thought of a gun.
Who do I blame? Of course, I blame the kid--he murdered 17 people! The root cause of violent crime isn't guns, it's violent criminals--simple common sense. He went on a rampage because he was plain and simply nuts. And his parents, behind him, take most of the blame--partly for raising a kid who was worse than a waste of oxygen, and partly for not noticing when their kid started goose-stepping around the house or whatever else he was doin'.
Likewise, you act as if making guns illegal would stop people from having them, buying them, or even making them. Yeah, that worked so good with alcohol and drugs, let's just extend it a bit to cover our basic rights too!
Yes, bullying sucks. Yes, bullying does happen. Yes, it is indeed hard to live with. But if your reaction to a bully is to kill people, then there is something seriously wrong with your head--whether you do it with an Uzi or a big rock.
Also, let me note....
Before the 1950's, you could mail-order guns. Didn't matter if you were a felon, a mental-patient, a minor, whatever--just mail in your money, and you could get a gun mailed to you, and nobody would know.
Before the 1920's, nobody kept records of that stuff. It didn't matter if you were six, you could walk into a store and buy a gun.
So why weren't nutcases shooting up their schools back then?
Actually, the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun could be ordered through the Sears-Robuck catalog. Yes, the "Tommy Gun". Was there gun violence? Of course. Were there kids bringing in their parents' guns to school and killing half a classroom? Hell no. Because parents raised their kids better back then.
And along that line, let me note the Valentine's Day Massacre, from back in the days when you could have all the guns you wanted.
Capone's gang had four people break into a meeting of seven of his rivals--two were dressed as policemen and two others flashed badges and pretended to be plainclothes cops. They lined the rivals up against a wall, and then shot and killed them all. Predictably enough, a crowd gathered around, and the two 'cops' handcuffed the 'plainclothes officers'. Then then stepped outside with their 'prisoners', all four got into a car, and they escaped.
This was a shock to the nation. People were absolutely stunned, and the uproar was intense. It was one of the leading factors in Prohibition--this event changed our Constitution.
Four gang members shot and killed seven rival gang members.... would this even make the news today? Would anybody care, so long as they weren't caught in the cross-fire?
It's clear that making guns harder to obtain (harder to legally obtain, at least) has not made us safer.
Look at this, one of his works.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/195194
...
You should step outside the U.S. some time. It might make it alot clearer.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
In Iraq, every home has an AK47. They didn't have much gun violence at all amongst themselves. Other than Shiite-Sunni-Kurd disputes, you didn't find gang killings, you didn't find muggings, you didn't find school shootings (hell, you barely found schools).Quote:
Originally Posted by Destai
Firearms are extremely easy to obtain in many, many places, and that has certainly not made extreme amounts of gun violence in those areas.
(Please excuse Operation Iraqi Freedom and Coalition Forces from the situation in Iraq. I'm talking pre-war.)
Once again, I stick to the fact that gun control laws only work for people that obey laws. Criminals (who are the people who would be using guns to commit crimes, by the way) wouldn't follow gun control laws anyway--they don't apply, so they wouldn't help. You won't see somebody say "Dammit, I forgot to get a new registration for this pistol, I guess I'll have to wait another week to murder somebody."
Iraq doesnt count :greenie: lol11
I was just using Iraq as example of an area with a high availability of firearms. And you can't say the Iraqi people are less violent than Americans... I'm sure there are many regions where guns are easy to get that don't have the school shootings and such that America does.
What regions developed as Amerca are as easy to get a gun in? Yeah getting rid of the guns now that theyre in the country is a very tricky business but theyve got to do something. Start slow at getting rid of them by adding restrictions to there use and availability of guns and ownership. They have to start somehow because the situation right now is ridiculous.
is america really that bad when it comes to our gun laws. some of you who are not from the US make it seem like gun violence is rampant. Its not. alot of people own guns, but like said before but accual crimes commited where someone is shot and killed in america is really low considering our population. Of course we are gonna have more shootings than the UK, we have a bigger population, we have 5 times the population of the UK(estimated at 59.6 million) and and 9times the population of canada(estimated at 31.2million). See, its your contries that accually over aggerate the gun thing. We simply have more crimes involving guns because we have more people. and some said that if someone brought a gun to school in their country it would be on the news because its not common, well....DUH, obviously its not common here either if its all over the news here like we've never seen it.
God america must seem really bad to countries with smaller population. hell we have 290million people. of course crime is gonna be worse.
heck we have more people in california than in all of canada. now i bet if we took the total number of gun crimes in cali, and compared it to canada, it would be about the same.
or it would be worse in Cali, there are more gun owners in Canada, but they have this crazy idea of not using it on each other, go figure