School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

ThinkProgress wrote: »

This is why focusing solely on the gun, as the primary root of the problem, is a very unintelligent approach. It's just a dumb reactionary response.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting focusing solely on guns, but even bringing them up as part of the discussion results in defensiveness and whataboutary from the pro-gun lobby (and the contrary minded on here). Usually they will cry that mental health is the real problem but then offer no real solution to tackling that either. If you want to see a real dumb reactionary response check out all the responses like "Cars kill, should we ban cars too!?"

But if anyone was really serious tackling gun deaths in the US I think they would have to agree that part of the solution has to be trying to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. If you have ever held a gun you know they are a very empowering tool. If you buy one to defend your family you feel safer (even if statistics say otherwise). And on the flip side if you harbour hatred for society or certain groups, owning a gun could help you feel empowered to act against them.

In Australia when they brought in sweeping gun control measures to reduce gun ownership, suicide rates dropped considerably. Why would suicide rates fall just because one method wasn't available? Surely if you want to kill yourself and you don't have a gun you would just go about it another way? Guns are tools to make killing easier and if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Manic Moran wrote: »

But does/can the problem have to be tackled by banning guns? Or can it perhaps be tackled by other means more effectively, if perhaps with less fanfare?

But can the problem be tackled partially by stricter gun laws? Sorry if I am making you repeat yourself but what are the other solutions you propose? And what do you mean by less fanfare? I would suggest it is often the pro-gun lobby why cry "2nd Amendment!" at a mere hint of tightening laws that are been dramatic.

If they couldn't make a change after Sandy Hook I doubt they will ever change.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Agreed. But does/can the problem have to be tackled by banning guns? Or can it perhaps be tackled by other means more effectively, if perhaps with less fanfare?

For example, should the first question be "Why does he have a gun?" or "Why does he think it would be a good idea to go kill a bunch of schoolkids?".

You are just like trump - blame mental health and leave the guns alone.

If you could wake up tomorrow and with a blink of an eye, rid US of the 300m guns would you? So nobody had one, not even the police?

Whatever about handguns and hunting rifles, wouldn't banning assault rifles be a step in the right direction? Even banning the sale to people with mental health issues? Why not just ban the AR-15 considering how much it's used to slaughter children?

After Sandy Hook Obama couldn't even get background checks passes.

Your country is completed fvcked and I'm glad I can send my children to school each day without worrying if they're going to get shot by the police or slaughtered by another kid with an AR15.

Every time I hear about another mass shooting I just shrug my shoulders and don't give it much attention, complete apathy at this stage.

Fvcking Americans - you elected Trump and love your guns and don't mind 4 year old children being slaughtered. I'm glad most of you don't ever leave the country - stay where you are.

Billy86 wrote: »

That's just what is being reported - point scoring would be the likes of calling the murderer here a 'very fine person'.

If you don't want to hear what the news is being reporting on this story as per the head of a local white supremacist group in that area, maybe just avoid the thread.

That group look like unique individuals.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, look over my past responses. I am rarely short, granted, but I do try not to be patronising. I suspect such doesn't exactly win over people in argument as reasoned arguments do.

Having accepted your invitation to "look over my past responses", I inadvertently placed this response in one of those older forums. So I copied it back here now.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have in the past proposed arguments which have been ignored by members on this board who are focused solely on firearms descriptions.
They have varied from a simple process to ensure all firearms are sold with a background check (And correct input of the NICS data) to mandatory firearms training in the same manner that we school folks on sex or driving.
...Effective policies to address the crime rate, both social and criminal ones, will have a dramatic effect on the nation's firearms death rate, certainly more than criminalising firearms.
...Can someone explain why names like Cho and Paddock are so famous? Why are we celebretizing these folks? Is it that hard to pass a law saying "They must die in obscurity", which, according to more than a few psychologists, may reduce the temptation for people to carry out dramatic spree shootings?

With the greatest respect, you have not suggested anything remotely effective or indeed reasonable. You say "We have to reduce crime", with which nobody would argue, but how? Ay, there's the rub.
We have to train people to use firearms properly as if they were cars.
And when something goes catastrophically wrong we have to say "Ssshhh! Don't tell anyone!"

That's it. That's all you've got.

If you had been on the Titanic, the deck chairs on the wreckage would still be perfectly arranged.

Manic Moran wrote: »

So, to summarise, there are at least four tracks which can be considered.

You say "considered" but on reading your subsequent analysis, the word you really meant to use was "rejected".

There's really no point arguing with you. The actions of the countries in the rest of the democratic world, which allow civilians to own firearms but greatly restrict the latitude with which they can be used, speak more eloquently than any spoken or written argument anyone can make here.

JenovaProject wrote: »

Petty political point scoring.
Pretty scummy behaviour.
RIP to those poor kids.

Since the president has said that Nazis and White Supremacists contain good people, has also got considerable support from them. Yep I think it's relevant that the president isn't opposed to white nationalists and in fact panders to them. Plus he brought in cuts in relation to investigating white nationalists.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/346552-trump-cut-funds-to-fight-anti-right-wing-violence

Chrongen wrote: »

And now it's all forgotten.



Roll on next massacre.

Sounds like shootings in general,even at your own doorstep.
But media is doing a great job finding the cause.