15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

Strider wrote: »

The point I was making was that the sky has not fallen in as a result.

yes , which is the focus of my responses, why does US society seem to generate so many nut-jobs that target children in schools

Deleted User wrote: »

You care enough to reply to every suggestion of change without offering any of your own.

America doesn't have any more nut jobs than anywhere else in the world.

do we have statistics on that

mzungu wrote: »

Shooters would then end up going somewhere else that does not have any armed security. For this to work you would need armed guards pretty much everywhere. It is a difficult one to answer but before any effective measures can be taken, changes in attitude are needed. I don't hold out much hope for that happening any time soon though.

what changes in attitude would you suggest need to change that would be effective in preventing a nut-job killing innocents in a local school

Penn wrote: »

How about changing gun laws to reflect what gun laws are like in most other developed countries which have far fewer gun-related deaths, ranging from single/multiple/mass shootings?

This isn't rocket science. This isn't a "Well, we don't know what the answer is". We know what the answer is, because it's the same answer that applies to almost every other developed country. Install stricter gun laws = Reduce gun deaths. That's the answer.

The only problem is that to do that, you have to take guns away from people. Some of those people are crazy. Which means some of those crazy people are crazy people with guns. Add to that lobby groups like the NRA and gun-loving politicians, and what you end up with is an easy answer but no way to implement it, and no political group who'll have the balls to do it.

And so the Circle of Life Death will keep on spinning. Because having a gun is a right, and for some reason that's more important than stopping people from dying.

thats simply doesnt stand up to any argument with some logic in it

Firstly virtually ALL reasonable societies that pretend to be liberal, allow the ownership of firearms, So now the debate descends into " firearm technicalities"

Many European and even Ireland allow the legal ownership of high powered firearms, yet Europe as a whole, does not , even though it has a bigger population, find itself with lots of school shootings ( but of course we have lots of madmen shooting up trains, shops, etc)

to delve into the kernel of your argument
" Install stricter gun laws = Reduce gun deaths. "

yes but that may stop " mom and pop shootings" , but it wont stop white on black, or police race shootings and most of all " nut-job" shootings

To be specific in the USA, unless you are prepared to change the constitution, then gun law change will have little or no effect, sure you might make it difficult for Mrs Miggens in Apartment 4B to own a Glock. But you will clearly not make it impossible for Mr " Nut-Job" to acquire sufficient lethality to carry out his particular horror .


By all means tinker with the legislation , ban big magazines, ban assault rifles ( all these are already in place in certain states) , but it will not stop school shootings by nut-jobs

BoatMad wrote: »

but it wont stop white on black, or police race shootings and most of all " nut-job" shootings

...

but it will not stop school shootings by nut-jobs

You keep saying that regulation won't have any effect, but it isn't fact. Giving examples of killings in countries with more regulation doesn't prove it.

Ive already pointed out that your argument is a fallacy: Regulation of guns didn't stop these mass killings, therefore regulation of guns cannot have any effect on stopping mass killings.

BoatMad wrote: »

Nope thats not what I am saying , Im saying regulation of firearms, "may" change the nature of ( or a degree of lethality associated with ) school killings , but it will not in my estimation change the fact that they occur.

You said regulation would not be effective - If you are saying that it would in fact make school shootings potentially less lethal (say, only 2, or 5 dead instead of 10), then I would call that effective.

Something doesn't have to tackle the root cause to be effective in limiting the damage cause by that root cause.

osarusan wrote: »

You said regulation would not be effective - If you are saying that it would in fact make school shootings potentially less lethal (say, only 2, or 5 dead instead of 10), then I would call that effective.

Something doesn't have to tackle the root cause to be effective in limiting the damage cause by that root cause.

shooting the nut-job dead on the steps of the school, before he can use his , less then 100% effective , restricted license firearm, is what i call 100% effective

steddyeddy wrote: »

You can ask that question but the obvious answer is that Europe lacks the obsession with gun culture that America has become famous for. I can bet if several gun massacres happen in a year in a European country there would be reasoned debate about gun control.

I dont think a gun culture exists in the US, having lived there. what exists is an incredible sense that you both defend yourself and sort your problems yourself. That stems from the frontiers based development that occurred in the US. That is not disappearing any time soon and is a defining difference between US and European cultures . we tend to name this a " can do attitude " and it has negative and positive aspects . Guns feed into this perspective. the majority of people you meet ( as in a white middle class urban person) in the US are not gun-nuts or mention guns or even have guns

America post shooting seems to be more afraid of gun regulation than another shooting.

no I dont agree, firstly there are constitutional issues that most be overcome and the constitution has huge support ,mechanisms to change it are incredibly difficult requiring essentially support from 38 state legislatures

remember all the freedoms the gun lobby has won have been achieved at the hands of the court , none were legislated into being ", SCOTUS only actually verified that right to bear arms included personal defence relatively recently , the same is true for carry and concealed carry laws, and the removal of handgun bans. many states had very restrictive gun laws, that were overturned by court action ( Connecticut and new york for example )

Hence there are significant issues in bringing in an restrictive gun regulations that will survive court challenge.

BoatMad wrote: »

shooting the nut-job dead is more effective. personally thats my solution. as an engineer I like to maximise the effectiveness of a solution

So it turns out you won't even answer the question.

osarusan wrote: »

So it turns out you won't even answer the question.

no because you cannot actually offer up thats is 50% or 30% or any-percent so I wont dignify it with an answer. ( thats the gun technicalities debate in another form)

I'm looking at solutions that stop all kids being targeted by nut-jobs in a classroom

You are suggesting " length of string" debates to simply place me in a certain box that suits your debate

I dont believe that short of an almost total ban on all firearms and a virtual war to remove illegal held and acquired firearms , that tinkering with US gun laws would make any significant difference

Tinker away all you like, however, Im not debating lengths of string as I have no data to do so.