10 people shot dead in Texas

Greysquirel09

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're confusing article with study. Have the findings been disproved since?

Where did you find that article?

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Where did you find that article?

Are you OK? Your posts are mostly unconnected to the posts you're quoting.

steddyeddy

evolving_doors wrote: »

Maybe the kids just lack some basic military training!

I think the people defending gun laws in America need to be laughed at following this article.

Greysquirel09

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you OK? Your posts are mostly unconnected to the posts you're quoting.

You googled US deaths caused by lack of health insurance and up came that Harvard study first hit. A 10 year old study. You were getting found out with your lack of knowledge and quoted a Harvard article you were unaware of till you googled 10 mins prior. Pretty pathetic.

pjohnson

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

You googled US deaths caused by lack of health insurance and up came that Harvard study first hit. A 10 year old study. You were getting found out with your lack of knowledge and quoted a Harvard article you were unaware of till you googled 10 mins prior. Pretty pathetic.

Well this argument provides adequate support to your claim America is great.

greencap

They see guns as toys.


They'll lie, and digress about all kinds of shyte.

But never just admit they just like acting the clown with things that go bangbangbang.


muh 2nd amendment, muh 2nd amendment. yeah its a fcking amendment. a.k.a a change.

you need a 40 rd weapon for what exactly.

RiderOnTheStorm

More Americans are killed by toddlers each year (accidentally shooting parent) than by terrorists....

News, statistics and logic wont change a thing until the NRA loose clout.

steddyeddy

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

You googled US deaths caused by lack of health insurance and up came that Harvard study first hit. A 10 year old study. You were getting found out with your lack of knowledge and quoted a Harvard article you were unaware of till you googled 10 mins prior. Pretty pathetic.

I havent the energy to read beyond your first sentence. They're all pretty pointless in this debate.

Hitman3000

I trust everyone has posted "thoughts and prayers" by now.

Hitman3000

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

More Americans are killed by toddlers each year (accidentally shooting parent) than by terrorists....

If only the parent had a gun to shot those terrorist toddlers...oh wait.

Hitman3000

Seriously how can anyone post on these threads in a serious manner. Terrible kids murdered terrorised etc etc, but nothing changes . Insults traded back and forth. The good thing is I get to comment from a position where my kids are not at risk form this crap as I live in Europe. My brother however is a cop in L.A. with 3 kids different attitude. Sorry for saying this but the 2nd amendment is the reason the f**ktards experience this on a regular basis.

Manic Moran

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Sorry for saying this but the 2nd amendment is the reason the f**ktards experience this on a regular basis.

We have had 2A for over two centuries. It hasn’t changed. Indeed, in recent years, fewer people have experience with firearms, and restrictions have been greater: We haven’t always been prohibited from bringing guns to school, it used to be not uncommon.

Few people seem to be asking why, despite the supposed reduction in access to firearms, the number of spree shootings are going up. Psychologists are, but since they prefer to focus on things like motivation instead of the guns, they don’t get as much press.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-dreams/

Many of our insights have come from analyzing the violent fantasies of adolescent shooters. These imaginings take root in a desperate mind that yearns for recognition. Often these young assassins are inspired by examples set by previous shooters. The fantasies typically intensify over a number of years before they are acted on. [...]
Thus, the media attention showered on previous school shooters such as the Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold often appeals greatly to would-be copycats, because the publicity may pass for esteem in their minds.[...] Schools are a natural target because adolescents experience the worst slights in school. Two months before his rampage in Germany, Bosse wrote in his diary, "Imagine that you're standing in your old school and that your trench coat conceals all of your tools of righteousness, and then you throw the first Molotov cocktail, the first bomb. You are sending the most hated place in the world to Hell!"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

School shootings are a modern phenomenon. There were scattered instances of gunmen or bombers attacking schools in the years before Barry Loukaitis, but they were lower profile.
But what if the way to explain the school-shooting epidemic is to go back and use the Granovetterian model—to think of it as a slow-motion, ever-evolving riot, in which each new participant’s action makes sense in reaction to and in combination with those who came before?[...]
Larkin looked at the twelve major school shootings in the United States in the eight years after Columbine, and he found that in eight of those subsequent cases the shooters made explicit reference to Harris and Klebold. Of the eleven school shootings outside the United States between 1999 and 2007, Larkin says six were plainly versions of Columbine; of the eleven cases of thwarted shootings in the same period, Larkin says all were Columbine-inspired.
Along the same lines, the sociologist Nathalie E. Paton has analyzed the online videos created by post-Columbine shooters and found a recurring set of stylized images: a moment where the killer points his gun at the camera, then at his own temple, and then spreads his arms wide with a gun in each hand; the closeup; the wave goodbye at the end. “School shooters explicitly name or represent each other,”

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/americas-mass-shooting-epidemic-contagious/545078/

But according to a 2015 paper out of Arizona State University, “Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings,” there are some data that mass shootings often occur in bunches, which indicates that they “infect” new potential murderers, not unlike a disease. “We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past,” the authors wrote. Suicide and terrorism, too, have been found to be likewise contagious.[...]
Diseases spread among individuals, but the contagion of mass shootings seems to spread through broadcast media. In an interview with The Atlantic in 2015, Sherry Towers, the ASU paper’s lead author, hypothesized that television, radio, and other media exposure might be the vectors through which one mass shooting infects the next perpetrator. Like a commercial, each event’s extraordinary coverage offers accidental advertising for depravity. One reason why mass-media coverage of shootings might inspire more shootings is that public glorification inspires some mass murderers.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats/

Evidence amassed by the FBI and other threat assessment experts shows that perpetrators and plotters look to past attacks both for inspiration and operational details, in hopes of causing even greater carnage. Would-be attackers frequently emulate the Columbine massacre; one high-level law enforcement agent told me that he’s encountered dozens of students around the country who say they admire the Columbine killers
[...]
The media faces a growing challenge in how its content is spread and recycled. When I asked various law enforcement and forensic psychology experts what might explain America’s rising tide of gun rampages, I heard the same two words over and over: social media

There is a good ten or fifteen minutes of reading in those links if anyone actually cares about -why- these things are happening. Absolutely, access to firearms makes things easier for those who feel slighted or want a place in the world to get their name in the news or make a statement, but they are not the root cause. The increase in spree shootings, coupled with decrease in firearms access and an increase in mass media, does point a very strong indicator in the direction of media as a line of attack.

The last article makes a number of suggestions.

Report on the perpetrator forensically and with dispassionate language. Avoid terms like “lone wolf” and “school shooter,” which may carry cachet with young men aspiring to attack. Instead use language such as “perpetrator,” “lone act of terrorism,” and “act of mass murder.”
Keep the perpetrator’s name out of headlines. Rarely, if ever, will a generic reference to him in a headline be any less practical.
Minimize use of the perpetrator’s name. When it isn’t necessary to repeat it, don’t. And don’t include middle names gratuitously, a common practice for distinguishing criminal suspects from others of the same name, but which can otherwise lend a false sense of their importance.
Minimize use of images of the perpetrator. This is especially important both in terms of aspiring copycats’ desire for fame, and the psychology of individuals who may be vulnerable to identifying with mass shooters.
Avoid using “pseudocommando” or other posed photos of the perpetrator. Such self-styled images are the ones they hope will get publicity. These should be avoided especially after the images are outdated, such as showing the Aurora killer again with his “Joker” hair during his trial three years later, when he was heavier and wore glasses and a beard.
Avoid publishing the perpetrators’ videos or manifestos except when clearly valuable to the reporting. Instead, paraphrase, cite sparingly, and provide analysis. The guiding question here may be: Is this evidence already easily accessible online? If so, is there a genuine reason to reproduce it in full and spread it, other than to generate page views?
Don’t fixate on body counts. Would-be attackers are keeping score too—and many want to outdo their predecessors.

Not only do these focus on a root catalyst, they can be easily implemented without significantly affecting anyone’s legal rights, or detrimental countereffects. In the past ten pages, I can recall exactly one post commenting on this part of the phenomenon. The follow-on question is, if this can be easily implemented, and it can, why isn’t anyone doing it? The experts say it’s an issue. I don’t know anyone who would be against it. Whilst the argument over 2A and the State analogues continues, why not pass a code on this in the meantime? Is it just not a vote-getter? Are the media too concerned with their ratings?

Instead, the reaction has been to focus as a solution that which has not changed: The firearms. Improvements can be made in the firearms regimen, in the way we teach children to interact with each other, and, most easily, quickly and likely effectively, the way we put these incidents in the culture to begin with.

Sponge25

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Breaking on BBC.

Another High school shooting by the looks of it.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-44173954

How many more will it take before they reaxminne their gun policies?

Never, there will be thousands of deaths if they try to revoke the second amendment.

kildare lad

Its just a vicious cycle, it'll never change. Imagine having to worry about your kids getting shot going to school, and their politicians doing nothing about it. Ive said it before , America has some of the most dumbest, ignorant, backward people in the developed world. They even elected two of the last three presidents who'd fit into that category. You only have to watch Donald Trump speak at a rally, and all the idiots hollering and cheering at every incoherent, bumbling statement he comes out with.

Graces7

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Maybe it's because the culture, and laws, allow carry unless expressly prohibited.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44158099

for schoolkids? One of the guns was not his.

So no.

So he was able to simply carry the two guns in hidden under a coat? A school child? And no one checked?

That is crazy, given the number of school shootings.

https://www.propublica.org/article/nyc-school-children-face-airport-style-security-screening-every-day

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school-metal-detectors/

So what went wrong in Texas?

sarcasticus magnificus

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

steddyeddy

kildare lad wrote: »

Its just a vicious cycle, it'll never change. Imagine having to worry about your kids getting shot going to school, and their politicians doing nothing about it. Ive said it before , America has some of the most dumbest, ignorant, backward people in the developed world. They even elected two of the last three presidents who'd fit into that category. You only have to watch Donald Trump speak at a rally, and all the idiots hollering and cheering at every incoherent, bumbling statement he comes out with.

Donald even said he loves uneducated people. They responded by putting him into office.

2011

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

This type of carnage will continue until you remove the one common denominator - Guns.

Great idea.
One question though: How??

I'm afraid that is like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
There are simply too many guns in circulation in the US.

Every time there is a shooting incident such as this guns sales soar because people worry that certain types of firearms will be banned so they want to stock up just in case.

Speaking as a keen target shooter, I don't agree with many aspects of gun laws in the US. However I don't think that the issues they have are simply due to the availability of firearms. Many other countries have high gun ownership and don't have these issues. These countries include Norway, Switzerland and Canada. I don't know what the solution is, but removing guns from the equation with the best will in the world simply isn't an option.

Many would be surprised what can be legally owned by civilians in many countries, for example I know of more than one AR15 licensed in the Republic of Ireland.

dr.fuzzenstein

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

So you are saying that people are the problem and I would tend to agree.
America is the most violent place in the developed world.
Would you not agree that flooding a population of violent psychopaths with guns is a bad idea?
Americans are quite apparently too childish and volatile to be given guns.

steddyeddy

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

If that's true you favor no gun control?

sarcasticus magnificus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So you are saying that people are the problem and I would tend to agree.
America is the most violent place in the developed world.
Would you not agree that flooding a population of violent psychopaths with guns is a bad idea?
Americans are quite apparently too childish and volatile to be given guns.

I don't consider Americans to be a population of violent psychopaths.
Every single country in the world has its share of psychopaths and America is not different.
Look at London - knife attacks there occur almost every day, and just recently we have learned that the London murder rate surpassed that of New York.
So how did gun control increase safety in London exactly?
There is a small town in the US I've read about (Kennesaw, Georgia) where it's required by law that every household maintains a firearm. Haven't been murders there for years and gun violence is amongst the lowest in the US.

So do we need more gun control, or more decent law abiding people with guns?

sarcasticus magnificus

steddyeddy wrote: »

If that's true you favor no gun control?

No, I believe that any law abiding, mentally stable adult should be able to buy a gun.
I do believe there should be changes to gun control laws in issues such as licensing procedures, identification & vetting, training, gun keeping and safety, verification of medical, criminal & psychiatric records and more.

lawred2

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Stricter gun laws do not help. It was proven already in cities like chicago where there are extremely strict gun laws and yet the cities are still in the top list of gun violence.

To fix a problem, you have to address the root cause of the problem, and guns are not the root cause. They're a tool. If a kid wants to kill his schoolmates he will find a way - the internet is full of bomb recipes and manuals on how to construct home made weapons.
Doesn't seem like anyone is really looking for root causes though. Everyone seems to be just following a yes/no agenda in regards to gun laws.

Indeed people kill people.

So why make it easier for them to do so?

dr.fuzzenstein

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

No, I believe that any law abiding, mentally stable adult should be able to buy a gun.
I do believe there should be changes to gun control laws in issues such as licensing procedures, identification & vetting, training, gun keeping and safety, verification of medical, criminal & psychiatric records and more.

Yes, because someone who buys guns for the purpose of going on a shooting spree will definitely declare that when buying guns.
How does the clerk at the gun shop make that assertion?
Does he hang out with the customers, invite them round his house, have a few beer and shoot the breeze with them?
Nothing will change, except it will get worse.
Just offer thoughts and prayers and hope your kids aren't next. Because otherwise Americans will do fcuk all about it. God bless America.
You wanted it, you got it, enjoy it.

artvanderlay

There are so many guns in America and nobody is going to give them up willingly. All you can do really is beef up security in schools/universities/places with sitting duck targets. It's not a solution, but it might deter these little sh*ts if they think there is a chance they might get shot before they get to execute their plans.

Even without guns, you can use a car to kill, you can stab/throw acid...it's ****ed up. What is in the minds of these people that carry out these attacks? They feel they have been wronged in some way and they want somebody to pay. Maybe this is all a side effect of the increasingly narcissistic America culture of the past few decades, and the 'everybody is special/a winner' mantra in schools. They are breeding a population of entitled kids who can't handle rejection; rather than looking at themselves and trying to improve themselves, they pick up a gun and "say I'll show them all". I think the media is to blame a lot too, with the blanket news coverage when these shootings happen, plastering the killers face all over the internet/news. They should just say some cowardly loser shot some people and now he is crying for his mummy in police custody. I'd also make the little prick face down the people he shot when he is being sentenced.

sarcasticus magnificus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, because someone who buys guns for the purpose of going on a shooting spree will definitely declare that when buying guns.
How does the clerk at the gun shop make that assertion?
Does he hang out with the customers, invite them round his house, have a few beer and shoot the breeze with them?
Nothing will change, except it will get worse.
Just offer thoughts and prayers and hope your kids aren't next. Because otherwise Americans will do fcuk all about it. God bless America.
You wanted it, you got it, enjoy it.

The clerk at the gun shop should have no decision in anything.
In my opinion, and extremely roughly speaking, the process of buying a firearm should be more or less as follows (monitored and inspected regularly by the government):
1. Get firearm training for the specific firearm you want to buy, and get an official certificate to prove it.
2. Get inspected by a physician to make sure you are physically fit to handle a firearm (eyesight, reflexes, whatever decided by law), and get an official certificate to prove it.
3. Get interviewed by a qualified psychiatrist or even a police officer from a station in your district, and get an official certificate to prove it.
4. Go to the gun shop, present certificates, go home and wait.
5. The gun shop clerk should send the documents to a government agency that approves the gun permit or not based on very specific and rigid criteria - the customer doesn't have a criminal record or violent history, or history of drug abuse or any other relevant thing.

steddyeddy

lawred2 wrote: »

Indeed people kill people.

So why make it easier for them to do so?

I hate this phrase. People do kill people but what facilitates mass shootings? Remove the gun from the mass shooting and the murderer is considerably less capable of killing a lot of people.

2011

steddyeddy wrote: »

Remove the gun from the mass shooting and the murderer is considerably less capable of killing a lot of people.

I will ask the same question again:
How do you "remove the gun" ???

2011

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

The clerk at the gun shop should have no decision in anything.
In my opinion, and extremely roughly speaking, the process of buying a firearm should be more or less as follows (monitored and inspected regularly by the government):
1. Get firearm training for the specific firearm you want to buy, and get an official certificate to prove it.
2. Get inspected by a physician to make sure you are physically fit to handle a firearm (eyesight, reflexes, whatever decided by law), and get an official certificate to prove it.
3. Get interviewed by a qualified psychiatrist or even a police officer from a station in your district, and get an official certificate to prove it.
4. Go to the gun shop, present certificates, go home and wait.
5. The gun shop clerk should send the documents to a government agency that approves the gun permit or not based on very specific and rigid criteria - the customer doesn't have a criminal record or violent history, or history of drug abuse or any other relevant thing.

Any American politician try to get these measures through can be assured of not getting elected, end of. It is far more likely that they will revert to the current plan which is stopping bad guys with guns with good guys with guns despite how ludicrous that is.

sarcasticus magnificus

steddyeddy wrote: »

I hate this phrase. People do kill people but what facilitates mass shootings? Remove the gun from the mass shooting and the murderer is considerably less capable of killing a lot of people.

Remove the gun, and they get a truck or a knife or a homemade bomb or any other way you can think of to kill people. Poison in the school cafeteria during lunch? Locking school doors from the outside and lighting a fire?
Endless ways, some much more discrete and unstoppable and damaging than someone with a gun who can be stopped by someone else with a gun and training.