School shootings in America (and a wee bit help with homework!)

[Calax]

This is just me but I think there are several factors that attribute to various shootings. I'm not going to say that gun control is or is not a bad thing, however I will say that the fact that American families have guns probably has a direct link to various shootings. I say this because usually students/children who perform these types of shootings got their guns by stealing their parents guns. Now that isn't to say that the fact we have guns causes violent crime by any means, nor does it hike up the rates of violent crime. Rather it makes it easy for a kid to kill somebody, and gives them easy access to the tools.

One of the reasons that kids shoot up places is probably that they want to be noticed. Having lived through the hell that was highschool as an outcast, it's not fun. The other teens will always find something to harass you about if you didn't either have your own clique or make yourself scary enough that they thought you'd go homicidal on them (I admit I went with the latter category... and ended up being hauled off to county mental health for it). Also our society at that level rewards assholes and ***** queens by making them the social paragon. But as soon as they leave highschool and have to deal with a different group of people (who they can't lord over or harass very easily) they either get ostrasized because of their attitude, or they shape up and change their attitude.

I hate to say it but kids probably do more growing up when they are in College and when they have to be young adults. This is because of the aforementioned fact that they have to deal with a different population, plus the fact that the cliques that students formed (usually based around popularity and insulation from the 'unpopular') have been scattered and thus their peer support is gone (they don't have anyone to laugh with them at the geek or what have you). Also when you hit college you generally have to start living by different rules with your parents as you're technically an adult so you better damn well act like it.


I think parents are one of the roots of the tree that's school shootings. Not saying bad parenting but when you coddle and tell your children that they're the best things in the world and don't punish their bullying (or aren't active enough in their lives to Know about the bullying) you often cause them to become more of the *****/dick than they already are. I mean in my area there has been a case where a mother actually cheered her son on, from the car, as he and another kid beat the crap out of each other in the parking lot of a bus station. Meanwhile at my high school (I live in an affluent area) kids got cars for their birthdays (usually hand me downs from the parents who bought new cars every other year). Also drugs and alcohol at my school were rampant because they gave the student body something to do.

I'd have to do some research but I'd guess that most of the schools that had shootings at them were fairly homogeneous. Meaning that all the students had similar value structures and often had the same views. This would lead to an almost institutionalized form of discrimination of anyone who remotely differed from the general populations value's and views. By this I mean that if you were in a school that was prominently white, affluent, and republican, the group that was gay/lesbian friendly or democratic would find itself CONSTANTLY under fire from the entire other part of the vocal population simply for being different.

I'm going to stop now before I ramble forever.

 

[Necrophagist]

Okay, I've read over this a few times now and I fail to see how your data proves your point about gun control. there seems to be a correlation of murders to shooting murders that's pretty consistent across the board - in nearly every country, year to year, there is a roughly 1:4.5 ratio of homicide to shooting homicide. So what does this mean? It means nothing, NOTHING to the debate of gun control. You also fail to mention the US's gun homicide rate as you did with Canada. It seems you've cherry-picked your data, then used in ineffectively. This also leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

sure it does, the more gun control you have, the less death by guns

i haven't cherry picked the stats, i used 4 countries i mentioned, i could happy grab tons more and show how wrong you are

This data has little influence on my opinion on gun control. You have failed to provide compelling evidence about the effectiveness of the policy, and so in response to your EPIC FAIL, I issue a FAIL-TALITY. FINISH HIM!

yeah sorry that actual crime stats based on what the police find isn't convincing enough for you, the stats on gun control prove it's going down

notice Statscan's murder stats, for the past several years there has been more ppl stabbed to death in canada than shot. i'd have to say that gun control DOES work

you still gotta PROVE me wrong, i've offered some great stats showing how america, which has less restrictive gun laws actually has higher amounts of gun related deaths compared to 3 other countries with overly restrictive gun laws

PS quoting wikipedia constitutes a FAIL-ZILLA.

yeah cause i proved you wrong, poor poor you. especially since you have nothing to prove me wrong besides sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. YOU ARE WRONG, I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALA"

when you have some actual proof, that there isn't a correlation, please come back and try and retort me until then, sit down shut and up and have some cake

I'll say again, your statistics proved nothing. You provided no direct correlation (which, by the way, does not imply causation, but I'll bite) to gun control curbing gun violence. Then you say the burden of proof is on me? Since when? Since when do those who oppose gun control regulations have to PROVE that gun control is INEFFECTIVE? Don't those who SUPPORT gun control have that burden?

Well, I'll play along anyway. This isn't really about the right to USE a gun, it's about the right to CARRY a gun, agreed? So, let's focus on "right to carry" laws, such as the one passed in Florida in 1987. Between that time and 1996, the firearm violence rate went DOWN 37% while national trends toward gun violence INCREASED 15%. Even more impressive, the firearm homicide rate dropped a whopping 41% while nationwide saw an increase by 24%. There's a book that we used in a class on this subject that uses these statistics - here: Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. In fact, if you look at the survey of results accumulated from studies involving right to carry laws, it is almost uniformally true that right to carry decreases gun crime.

Why? Well, in the case of Dade County, Florida, not ONE permit-carrying gun user committed gun crimes against police. That comes from the same source used above. Also, in the case of Dade county, 221,443 gun permits were issued (that's a LOT of firearms in the hands of citizens), and only 18 instances of those registered firearms being used were recorded. That's an almost non-existent percentage.

This is an isolated incident, but it's the only survey of the effectiveness of conservative gun control regulations I can find. What does it tell us? Quite simply, that the vast majority of gun owners seek to own them for legitimate purposed - self-defense and sport. The overwhelming majority will never use their weapons to commit a violent crime. They want weapons to protect themselves from that marginal number who do want to use their weapons for violence.

So what do we do? Do we simply say that no private citizen can own a firearm, as it seems like you're implying? No, well, you're pretty much coming out and saying that, aren't you. After all, if nobody has any guns, nobody will shoot eachother, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. If law-abiding private citizens don't have guns, they won't be able to protect themselves from non-law-abiding citizens who don't care about whether or not they're allowed to have a gun.

Think about this scenario - on the campus of Virginia Tech, has Cho not been the only one to have a weapon on that day, how long do you think his rampage would have lasted? Let's say for every 10 students on campus that day, one had a gun on them. Odds are, when Cho first opened fire, one of those well-trained, responsible, mindful gun owners would have practiced their Constitutional Right to protect himself and taken Cho out before he had killed more innocent people. Of course, I can't prove this. Had Virginia NOT banned handguns being brought into "gun free zones" such as schools and universities, how far would Cho have gotten in his massacre? The gun ban didn't stop a killer from bringing guns to a University to commit a horrible act of violence, but a culture of self-defense may have stopped him.

People tend to pain gun advocates like we're all out in the wild west handing guns out to kids, thinking everybody should get to have a nuclear bomb in their basement. Come on. What we're talking about here is a policy that is proven to be ineffective, is contrary to the constitution, and doesn't make any sense. I'm a registered Democrat in my home state of Idaho, and I'm unable to see any value in gun control. Not because I own a weapon. Not because I think everyone should. But because it doesn't work.

 

[Irridium]

has anyone been to some rural areas of the southern U.S.?

down there, everyone has a gun. Its as common as people having hair.

The farther north you get, or the closer to cities you get, its much more restricted.

I live in a rural area of Vermont, and everyone has a gun, there is even a shooting range that anyone can come to and shoot some rounds downrange.

I used to live in Chicago, where if you go outside there is a chance of you getting shot.
Its like another world out here in Vermont.


Its actually pretty interesting.

 

[000Ronald]

We're not a homework center, people should be doing it themselves. I'd have no problem if they had said "Can someone edit/look over this essay?", but he's basically saying "Here's the assignment, start it off for me." No. It's your work, your essay, and your opinion, not someone else's opinion that you copied off the internet and than expanded on a bit. And no, it's not research or anything of the sort, people are just too lazy to come up with something by themselves, so they ask for someone else's ideas.

Seriously, it's not even that hard of an essay. Just take a stance behind something and work on it until it's nice and shiny. Why does the US have so many shootings? Because we have so many guns. Look! A whole 3 seconds there, and I could write a whole essay on that in no time. It's laziness, and when it's something so incredibly easy, there's absolutely no excuse for coming around and asking for people to give them a thesis.

Mmm. Four days old. Apologies for dragging this up.

The thing you may be failing to understand is everyone in his school is already saying that America is full of gun-toting inbreed rednecks. That is, from what I understand, how the world views us. I would rather someone take the time out of their day to ask us how we feel than go with the popular vote.

Then agian, I belive it's safe to assume that you're not from the U.S.

As an answer to Cucumber, we have school shootings for the same reasons we have regular shootings; some people are messed up. If you hit a dog, it will bite you. If you hit a dog constantly, without reason, and without mercy, it will grow agressive to everyone around it.

If I may make a point, though; Humans are the only beings on the planet able to think they've been abused. If you hit a dog, you've hit a dog, but it might not understand what you're saying to it (or, more importiantly, what you're not saying). People do. If you neglect and abuse a person enough, they will snap, and they will fight back for their percieved survival.

Apologies for comparing killers to beaten dogs, but I find it nessecary to distance myself from them.

 

[Falseprophet]

Overall I liked Bowling for Columbine. But just because I liked it and agreed with much of it, it was still propaganda. It was definitely not objective--Moore had a definite agenda and set out to promote it.

What stood out for me was Moore's response to the argument advanced by some of the gun proponents he interviewed who said the USA had a more violent history than other countries. Moore responded with showing images of violence and brutality under British imperialism, and Germany and Japan's war crimes during WWII.

Now, Moore's point may be valid, but it's not really fair to compare long-established cultures like the UK, Germany and Japan with a comparatively young nation like the USA. The USA was largely built by armed settlers (occasionally backed by military force) continually heading west to occupy the continent and displace the original inhabitants. To make a fair comparison, you would need to compare US gun crime statistics and laws with countries that have a similar history, like Israel or South Africa (and maybe Australia?--I don't know enough about Australia's colonial period to say with authority).

 

[spikevamp]

Like someone up top said the basic answer is you all have guns and they do have a limited number of household uses.

Over here in Britain guns are amazingly pretty hard to get...apart from shotguns which all you need to do is
A) Not be a certified psychopath
and
B) Fork out £50 for a piece of paper saying your legally allowed to have one

 

[cleverlymadeup]

When did under 30% (as of 2006) become a 'Vast Majority'??
Our country does not sell guns to kids, the only way that kids could have gotten guns is if they stole them or bought them illegally, and buying illegally has nothing to do with gun control on citizens who buy them legally. If they made guns illegal in the United States then the criminals would just buy them illegally and then the law abiding citizens would have nothing to protect then selves with when confronted buy a criminal with a gun.

guns do NOT protect you, they are a false sense of security. if you think they'll protect you, you'll get shot and killed

I'll say again, your statistics proved nothing. You provided no direct correlation (which, by the way, does not imply causation, but I'll bite) to gun control curbing gun violence. Then you say the burden of proof is on me? Since when? Since when do those who oppose gun control regulations have to PROVE that gun control is INEFFECTIVE? Don't those who SUPPORT gun control have that burden?

ok then why does Japan, the UK and Canada, who have very strict gun control have lower rates of gun violence if it doesn't work at all? by your accounts that means it would remain the same but the exact opposite is true, there is very little compared to the states, there's tons of stats around to back that up.

Well, I'll play along anyway. This isn't really about the right to USE a gun, it's about the right to CARRY a gun, agreed? So, let's focus on "right to carry" laws, such as the one passed in Florida in 1987. Between that time and 1996, the firearm violence rate went DOWN 37% while national trends toward gun violence INCREASED 15%. Even more impressive, the firearm homicide rate dropped a whopping 41% while nationwide saw an increase by 24%. There's a book that we used in a class on this subject that uses these statistics - here: Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. In fact, if you look at the survey of results accumulated from studies involving right to carry laws, it is almost uniformally true that right to carry decreases gun crime.

actually that is wrong, here's the actual stats of death by firearm

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/332e1b3d-2648-4b06-8be5-d322f340c95d/1971_fwd_murder_firearms.aspx

funny the rates do take a dip, around the 99/00 area but have jumped right back up to where they are, guess that "right to carry" hasn't really worked all that well, also the percentage of murder by firearm has remained constant, ALL types of murder dropped not just one type. so it's once again wrong

This is an isolated incident, but it's the only survey of the effectiveness of conservative gun control regulations I can find. What does it tell us? Quite simply, that the vast majority of gun owners seek to own them for legitimate purposed - self-defense and sport. The overwhelming majority will never use their weapons to commit a violent crime. They want weapons to protect themselves from that marginal number who do want to use their weapons for violence.
[/quote

yes it took a dip down for a bit and has gone back up and increased over the years yet again. so you are yet again wrong

So what do we do? Do we simply say that no private citizen can own a firearm, as it seems like you're implying? No, well, you're pretty much coming out and saying that, aren't you. After all, if nobody has any guns, nobody will shoot eachother, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. If law-abiding private citizens don't have guns, they won't be able to protect themselves from non-law-abiding citizens who don't care about whether or not they're allowed to have a gun.

actually i don't have a problem if you have a legitimate usage for a gun, ie hunting, however it will NEVER be useful in personal protection, if you think it will, you WILL be shot and you will die

ask any cop and they will tell you "if someone has a gun do NOT try and shoot them, do exactly what they ask of you"

Think about this scenario - on the campus of Virginia Tech, has Cho not been the only one to have a weapon on that day, how long do you think his rampage would have lasted? Let's say for every 10 students on campus that day, one had a gun on them. Odds are, when Cho first opened fire, one of those well-trained, responsible, mindful gun owners would have practiced their Constitutional Right to protect himself and taken Cho out before he had killed more innocent people. Of course, I can't prove this. Had Virginia NOT banned handguns being brought into "gun free zones" such as schools and universities, how far would Cho have gotten in his massacre? The gun ban didn't stop a killer from bringing guns to a University to commit a horrible act of violence, but a culture of self-defense may have stopped him.

ok so he pulled a gun and someone else shot him, they get arrested for murder as well. see the only way it would be construed as self defense is if the gun was pointed directly at them. if the gun is pointed somewhere else, that's called premeditated murder as they aren't clearly defending themselves

People tend to pain gun advocates like we're all out in the wild west handing guns out to kids, thinking everybody should get to have a nuclear bomb in their basement. Come on. What we're talking about here is a policy that is proven to be ineffective, is contrary to the constitution, and doesn't make any sense. I'm a registered Democrat in my home state of Idaho, and I'm unable to see any value in gun control. Not because I own a weapon. Not because I think everyone should. But because it doesn't work.

why don't you look at some stats from countries that have strict gun control to see any of the benefits, such as Canada, who has implemented more strict gun laws as years have gone by and have noticed a drop in firearm violence

actually the constitutionality of it is very open as there is a comma in the second amendment and the meaning can change depending on where you put it

EDIT: clarified something in the murder stats

 

[Necrophagist]

When did under 30% (as of 2006) become a 'Vast Majority'??
Our country does not sell guns to kids, the only way that kids could have gotten guns is if they stole them or bought them illegally, and buying illegally has nothing to do with gun control on citizens who buy them legally. If they made guns illegal in the United States then the criminals would just buy them illegally and then the law abiding citizens would have nothing to protect then selves with when confronted buy a criminal with a gun.

guns do NOT protect you, they are a false sense of security. if you think they'll protect you, you'll get shot and killed

I'll say again, your statistics proved nothing. You provided no direct correlation (which, by the way, does not imply causation, but I'll bite) to gun control curbing gun violence. Then you say the burden of proof is on me? Since when? Since when do those who oppose gun control regulations have to PROVE that gun control is INEFFECTIVE? Don't those who SUPPORT gun control have that burden?

ok then why does Japan, the UK and Canada, who have very strict gun control have lower rates of gun violence if it doesn't work at all? by your accounts that means it would remain the same but the exact opposite is true, there is very little compared to the states, there's tons of stats around to back that up.

Well, I'll play along anyway. This isn't really about the right to USE a gun, it's about the right to CARRY a gun, agreed? So, let's focus on "right to carry" laws, such as the one passed in Florida in 1987. Between that time and 1996, the firearm violence rate went DOWN 37% while national trends toward gun violence INCREASED 15%. Even more impressive, the firearm homicide rate dropped a whopping 41% while nationwide saw an increase by 24%. There's a book that we used in a class on this subject that uses these statistics - here: Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. In fact, if you look at the survey of results accumulated from studies involving right to carry laws, it is almost uniformally true that right to carry decreases gun crime.

actually that is wrong, here's the actual stats of death by firearm

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/332e1b3d-2648-4b06-8be5-d322f340c95d/1971_fwd_murder_firearms.aspx

funny the rates do take a dip, around the 99/00 area but have jumped right back up to where they are, guess that "right to carry" hasn't really worked all that well, also the percentage of murder by firearm has remained constant, ALL types of murder dropped not just one type. so it's once again wrong

This is an isolated incident, but it's the only survey of the effectiveness of conservative gun control regulations I can find. What does it tell us? Quite simply, that the vast majority of gun owners seek to own them for legitimate purposed - self-defense and sport. The overwhelming majority will never use their weapons to commit a violent crime. They want weapons to protect themselves from that marginal number who do want to use their weapons for violence.
[/quote

yes it took a dip down for a bit and has gone back up and increased over the years yet again. so you are yet again wrong

So what do we do? Do we simply say that no private citizen can own a firearm, as it seems like you're implying? No, well, you're pretty much coming out and saying that, aren't you. After all, if nobody has any guns, nobody will shoot eachother, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. If law-abiding private citizens don't have guns, they won't be able to protect themselves from non-law-abiding citizens who don't care about whether or not they're allowed to have a gun.

actually i don't have a problem if you have a legitimate usage for a gun, ie hunting, however it will NEVER be useful in personal protection, if you think it will, you WILL be shot and you will die

ask any cop and they will tell you "if someone has a gun do NOT try and shoot them, do exactly what they ask of you"

Think about this scenario - on the campus of Virginia Tech, has Cho not been the only one to have a weapon on that day, how long do you think his rampage would have lasted? Let's say for every 10 students on campus that day, one had a gun on them. Odds are, when Cho first opened fire, one of those well-trained, responsible, mindful gun owners would have practiced their Constitutional Right to protect himself and taken Cho out before he had killed more innocent people. Of course, I can't prove this. Had Virginia NOT banned handguns being brought into "gun free zones" such as schools and universities, how far would Cho have gotten in his massacre? The gun ban didn't stop a killer from bringing guns to a University to commit a horrible act of violence, but a culture of self-defense may have stopped him.

ok so he pulled a gun and someone else shot him, they get arrested for murder as well. see the only way it would be construed as self defense is if the gun was pointed directly at them. if the gun is pointed somewhere else, that's called premeditated murder as they aren't clearly defending themselves

People tend to pain gun advocates like we're all out in the wild west handing guns out to kids, thinking everybody should get to have a nuclear bomb in their basement. Come on. What we're talking about here is a policy that is proven to be ineffective, is contrary to the constitution, and doesn't make any sense. I'm a registered Democrat in my home state of Idaho, and I'm unable to see any value in gun control. Not because I own a weapon. Not because I think everyone should. But because it doesn't work.

why don't you look at some stats from countries that have strict gun control to see any of the benefits, such as Canada, who has implemented more strict gun laws as years have gone by and have noticed a drop in firearm violence

actually the constitutionality of it is very open as there is a comma in the second amendment and the meaning can change depending on where you put it

EDIT: clarified something in the murder stats

This response made no sense what so ever. I own a gun. So does my brother in law. So does my father in law. So do most of my friends. So far, none of us have been killed. So your argument, "actually i don't have a problem if you have a legitimate usage for a gun, ie hunting, however it will NEVER be useful in personal protection, if you think it will, you WILL be shot and you will die" is so, so wrong. So wrong.

Did you also NOT read the statistic you posted? They support my argument. Look at the firearm murder rate in 1971. Look at the present rate. There's a MASSIVE difference there, and Florida has one of the most conservative gun control system in the country. Consider "stand your ground" laws, consider "right to carry" laws. Firearm laws in Florida are DESIGNED to protect the right ro self-defense, and while the population in the state has more than DOUBLED, the murder by firearm rate has gone down by HALF.

Honestly, man. You have lost this argument. Please just admit it. You keep posting arguments that make no sense and then using evidence that supports my position. It's time to humble thyself and admit that thou ist wrong.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Like I always say, enacting gun control laws and enforcing them in this day and age in this country is going to be logistically impossible, too many weapons to round up, most crimes are committed with illegal weapons used by gangs. Take the guns away, they'll find new ways to get them in. You can go on and on about how gun control laws work in your country and others but they will likely not be very effective in the US. Not saying I oppose gun control, but it's like putting a band aid on an amputation.

 

[space_oddity]

Guns are the problem.
I hate it when governments infringe even the slightest on my liberties, but you'll find that guns have a very limited number of household applications.
They are tool designed specifically to kill people, nothing else.
And my civil liberties dont include the right to shoot people in the face/chest/sternum.

Look at all the disgruntled youths in Britain, and they dont have any school massacres (to my knowledge at least).

 

[Aschenkatza]

First off I'd slap your teacher for his/her saying: "Why are American schools especially in the danger zone when it comes to being attacked with guns by crazy or angry students?"
Most of the school shootings are not by CRAZY people. They are from children not being raised properly and asshole bullies who think they have the right to put down someone different!

PLEASE research the actually cases of American shootings and understand why these children decided to pick up guns and weapons and kill their classmates.
http://www.teentruthlive.com/ if you need a place to start your journey.

P.S. I'm not saying that what these children did is right, but there are actual reasons behind what happened and not just some child deciding he wants to kill people.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

This response made no sense what so ever. I own a gun. So does my brother in law. So does my father in law. So do most of my friends. So far, none of us have been killed. So your argument, "actually i don't have a problem if you have a legitimate usage for a gun, ie hunting, however it will NEVER be useful in personal protection, if you think it will, you WILL be shot and you will die" is so, so wrong. So wrong.

really you think it's useful in personal protection?

ok someone breaks into your house, puts a gun to your head, how is your gun protecting you?

someone walks up to you in an alley and puts a gun to your head and says hand me your money? how is it protecitng you cause once you reach for a gun he shoots you

someone walks into a store and points a gun at your head, how is your gun protecting you now?

someone comes up to your car, points a gun at you and says "get out of your car now", you reach for the glove box and they shoot you.


see it's NOT protecting you, in some instances it's getting your dumb ass shot and killed

Did you also NOT read the statistic you posted? They support my argument. Look at the firearm murder rate in 1971. Look at the present rate. There's a MASSIVE difference there, and Florida has one of the most conservative gun control system in the country. Consider "stand your ground" laws, consider "right to carry" laws. Firearm laws in Florida are DESIGNED to protect the right ro self-defense, and while the population in the state has more than DOUBLED, the murder by firearm rate has gone down by HALF.

WRONG the rate (the percentage column) has stayed the same, the total amount of murders have gone down, funnily enough during the Clinton years, only in 1999 did the rate drop 21% and in 2006 it went up 42%, most of the other time it's went up or down by 5% or so, which is pretty normal for any stat

to clarify those stats for you, from 1988 - 2007 the amount of murders in florida has risen by 5% over all

so i think you should read those stats again as you'll see you're wrong and i'm right

Honestly, man. You have lost this argument. Please just admit it. You keep posting arguments that make no sense and then using evidence that supports my position. It's time to humble thyself and admit that thou ist wrong.

yeah sorry but you've yet to prove me wrong, i even used your example of a state to prove you wrong, you've yet to actually offer any good proof, you cherry pick a stat of less gun murders HOWEVER all murders for that period had dropped

you've yet to prove me wrong, i've used your own examples to show you that you're wrong, so nice try at claiming i'm wrong, i think the truthiness squad would like a word or two with you

 

[Th3 Sh00ter]

here's my take on the short answer

america is a country with very little gun control, the vast majority have guns, both legal and illegal. other countries, such as canada, britain and japan, have strict gun control hardly any gun violence. the gun violence at school comes from the lack of control over the guns and their proper storage as parents can and do leave their guns in places that make access to the gun easy for their children who think shooting people is the way to solve the problems

FAIL! Gun control does little to curb gun violence - indeed, it creates a trend of not more gun violence, but more of it resulting in fatalities. Look up the numbers - gun control doesn't work.

The problem with school violence is that we in America have created a culture of alienation for our youth. The kids are expected to fit into particular compartments, perform a particular way, score a certain percentage on a test, etc. or they are considered failures. It's the new Sparta, where insufficient children are tossed to the elements and left to whither.

If you have a teenager who has grown up his entire life being told by a religious institution that his sexual preference is evil. That his music is evil. That his clothes make him into a criminal. That his disinterest in sports makes him an outcast. That his lack of interest in pop music makes him a Pariah. That his lack of social skills makes him useless. What do you expect to happen? Americans are so eager, so desperate, to preserve the American Dream that we have slaughtered hopes of so many young people, and this is the result. Senseless violence in an insensitive and senseless world.

I played football in high school, got good grades, listened to all the right music, I was a good looking, sociable young dude, and still I felt alienated. I felt the pressure of the world pressing down on me at all times. It was hard for me, and I can imagine how hard it may have been for kids who didn't fit the social ideal as well as I did.

The problem with school violence in America is social and religious pressures, not gun control or politics. Let's not forget that truism - if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.


... I also suspect that this has something to do with the dumbing-down of the human race as a result of overpopulation, draining the gene pool, and increasing consumption of poisons as a part of our diet. More mercury, anyone?

Well said. (Sorry for short post) =D

 

[Necrophagist]

This response made no sense what so ever. I own a gun. So does my brother in law. So does my father in law. So do most of my friends. So far, none of us have been killed. So your argument, "actually i don't have a problem if you have a legitimate usage for a gun, ie hunting, however it will NEVER be useful in personal protection, if you think it will, you WILL be shot and you will die" is so, so wrong. So wrong.

really you think it's useful in personal protection?

ok someone breaks into your house, puts a gun to your head, how is your gun protecting you?

someone walks up to you in an alley and puts a gun to your head and says hand me your money? how is it protecitng you cause once you reach for a gun he shoots you

someone walks into a store and points a gun at your head, how is your gun protecting you now?

someone comes up to your car, points a gun at you and says "get out of your car now", you reach for the glove box and they shoot you.


see it's NOT protecting you, in some instances it's getting your dumb ass shot and killed

Did you also NOT read the statistic you posted? They support my argument. Look at the firearm murder rate in 1971. Look at the present rate. There's a MASSIVE difference there, and Florida has one of the most conservative gun control system in the country. Consider "stand your ground" laws, consider "right to carry" laws. Firearm laws in Florida are DESIGNED to protect the right ro self-defense, and while the population in the state has more than DOUBLED, the murder by firearm rate has gone down by HALF.

WRONG the rate (the percentage column) has stayed the same, the total amount of murders have gone down, funnily enough during the Clinton years, only in 1999 did the rate drop 21% and in 2006 it went up 42%, most of the other time it's went up or down by 5% or so, which is pretty normal for any stat

to clarify those stats for you, from 1988 - 2007 the amount of murders in florida has risen by 5% over all

so i think you should read those stats again as you'll see you're wrong and i'm right

Honestly, man. You have lost this argument. Please just admit it. You keep posting arguments that make no sense and then using evidence that supports my position. It's time to humble thyself and admit that thou ist wrong.

yeah sorry but you've yet to prove me wrong, i even used your example of a state to prove you wrong, you've yet to actually offer any good proof, you cherry pick a stat of less gun murders HOWEVER all murders for that period had dropped

you've yet to prove me wrong, i've used your own examples to show you that you're wrong, so nice try at claiming i'm wrong, i think the truthiness squad would like a word or tw

o with you

Okay, I give up. You're honestly not willing to change your view even in the face of arguments. Speaking of Truthiness ...

... PS you watch too many movies. If someone breaks into your home, what in the world makes you think the first thing they're going to do is put a gun to your head? Or that someone who wants your money is going to put a gun to your head? Do you get ALL of your information from TV and movies? Someone who breaks into your home is a) hoping you're not home or 2) hoping you don't have a gun. Doesn't really matter. I'm a better shot anyway.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this little debate. I'm all for the exchange of ideas and points of view, but not with people who aren't reasonable.

 

[JRslinger]

Hi Cucumber,

If you're still reading this here is my take on school shootings. Because more families are having fewer children parents are more overprotective of them. Overprotected kids are less able to cope with being bullied.

It's not because of loose gun laws. 50 years ago gun laws were looser and school shootings were much less common.

 

[Greever]

Use google scholar, it is an excellent online source for white papers and such... Remain objective in your research and writing.

 

[Zersy]

I have been assigned by my dear English teacher to scribble down an essay about (You guessed it...) School shootings in America.

We've been assaulted with numerous movies and articles about how America is the violent shizzle. But I'd personally like it if I head the opinions from the average, yet quite intelligent, schmoes from The Escapist.

Basically, my assignment goes like this:
"Write a report in which you describe and discuss school shootings in America. Why are American schools especially in the danger zone when it comes to being attacked with guns by crazy or angry students?"

What do you think?
Discuss, and give me some opinions. =)

the way teenage social life is very different compared to other countries

Guns seem to be easy to get

the education system needs work

it's the fact that people know that School shootings happen in america and this is a major factor on the everyday mentaily

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Okay, I give up. You're honestly not willing to change your view even in the face of arguments. Speaking of Truthiness ...

yeah it kinda sux to have your own shining example used to prove you wrong

... PS you watch too many movies. If someone breaks into your home, what in the world makes you think the first thing they're going to do is put a gun to your head?

it's called home invasion and it happens lots. do a google search on it sometime

Or that someone who wants your money is going to put a gun to your head?

it's called a figure of speech but they WILL point a gun at you, i'm guessing you've never been mugged, i know several ppl who have including those who have had training and each and every time they have they were put in a position where if they did ANYTHING the person didn't ask they were dead or seriously injured

Do you get ALL of your information from TV and movies? Someone who breaks into your home is a) hoping you're not home or 2) hoping you don't have a gun. Doesn't really matter. I'm a better shot anyway.

a) yes they do hope you're not home but they will count on you possibly being home, most thieves do case the place they are thinking about robbing

b) if they know you're home and think you have a gun, they WILL arm themselves or make it so you can't get your gun

if you think you're such a better shot, you're a walking deadman and will end up in the hospital or worse

Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this little debate. I'm all for the exchange of ideas and points of view, but not with people who aren't reasonable.

yeah cause proving you wrong with your own examples of gun control "working" makes me unreasonable, it just makes me smarter than you as i can read statistics