Do These Mass Shootings Really Only Happen in America?

Worse than that, Kehoe killed more than either Cho or Lanza and only fired a single shot in the process.
_____________
Click to expand...

Yes, and just the other day, I believe it was the ABC news channael out of Cols., Ohio reported of yet another school lock down due to a bomb threat.

They went on to say how many lock down due to bomb threats that had made just this year in Columbus and the number(don't remember what they said) was astounding. IIRC, It was in the 100's.
 
Buzzook:
So because it happens elsewhere, does that make it ok if it happens here?

Are you arguing that mass shootings are like natural disasters and there's nothing that can be done about them?
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the point I'm trying to make. I have heard and read comments about how these atrocities are somehow uniquely American. My only point is that such atrocities happen across cultures and borders; yet that seems largely forgotten by some. And, I absolutely believe that we can do something to prevent them.
 
You dont need a gun for violence. On the same day as the shootinge in Conn. school a man broke into a school in China and used a knife to cut, slash, and dismember 22 students. Here is the big question??? Was it the knife or the man that comited the violence..
 
What they are not...

They are not new.
They are not uniquely American
They are not as frequent as we are led to believe (and yes, even one it too many)
They are not preventable by any law.

The absolute most any law can do is make it slightly more difficult for a given individual to get certain tools, so a law banning X could well result in the killer using Y, which might be even more deadly in effect. (can't easily -or cheaply- get an "assault weapon, so use a bomb, or gasoline and a match....etc..)

They do not happen where people are both armed, and willing to fight back.

(even on an Army base, there are only a handful of armed police. Regular troops do not have their arms (or if they do, they do not have ammunition for them). They are all locked up in storage until issued for use (including training).

Physically, we are animals, specifically mammals. And it is an observed fact that among mammals, certain species have individuals that, for no obvious reason run "amok". We can't talk to the animals to learn why, and when they kill themselves (or are killed) we can't talk to the killers to learn why. But it is clear that it does happen, everywhere there are humans, with no clearly discernable pattern.

We cannot read minds (and if we could, would it be ethical?). There is no way to determine who is going to snap, or when. Some give hints, or clues, but by no means all do. And recognizing those clues for what they are, BEFORE a violent act is committed is seldom possible.

Judging what is actuall a creditable threat to society and what is just a harmless raving is a really tough call. Particularly with our right to free speech, and the sloppiness of our language. Do we throw sports fans in jail for years/decades because they shout "Kill 'em!!!" at the game? No, we don't.

But we do investigate someone who says "I would like to shoot the President!" And if the threat is deemed creditable, you bet we take action.

But what about the people who say nothing? Or even LIE?...at least one of the Columbine killers had "peace, and love, diversity, and lets all get along" type messages all over their webpage. Not very reflective of what they actually felt, or did, though.

There is no easy fix, and world history seems to show that there is really no "fix" at all, at least not so long as mankind remains what we are. The only thing I am certain about, is that no gun control law (or any kind of law) will prevent it happening again, somewhere, sometime.

And the people telling us that it will, or that "if it saves just one..." are either woefully ignorant, or deliberately lying to us, and themselves.
 
You dont need a gun for violence. On the same day as the shootinge in Conn. school a man broke into a school in China and used a knife to cut, slash, and dismember 22 students. Here is the big question??? Was it the knife or the man that comited the violence..
Click to expand...

None were killed. What do you think the outcome would have being if he had a assault rifle and a couple of handguns.

I think its a fair question he probably used a knife because he had no access to firearms.
 
Why must it be limited to shootings, mass murder is mass murder ...,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

The killing was well organized by the government.[14] When it started, the Rwandan militia numbered around 30,000, or one militia member for every ten families. It was organized nationwide, with representatives in every neighborhood. Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms. Other weapons, such as grenades, required no paperwork and were widely distributed by the government. Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes. Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes from China[15] for Hutu use in killing Tutsi, because machetes were cheaper than guns.[16] In a 2000 news story, The Guardian reported, "The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, played a leading role in supplying weapons to the Hutu regime which carried out a campaign of genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. As Minister of Foreign Affairs in Egypt, Boutros-Ghali facilitated an arms deal in 1990, which was to result in $26 million (£18m) of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda. The arms were used by Hutus in attacks which led to up to a million deaths."[17]​
 
Actually, the machete is one of the most lethal of all edged weapons. Even here in the US, street gangs like MS-13 have been known to regularly use them on rivals.

Countries like Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, and Russia all have much stricter firearms laws than the United States, but have much higher homicide rates.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
 
Last edited:
I think its a fair question he probably used a knife because he had no access to firearms.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter the tool used for the killings?

Maybe he didn't have access to a gun...and maybe in China, he couldn't go to his local library or punch up on the internet from the comforts of his home 'how to make a bomb'.

Here in the U.S., we have these freedoms. It's when these freedom's are abused by a few that these freedoms come into question.
But these freedoms are what separate the U.S. from many other countries. If we start chopping these freedoms rather then harshly dealing with these few psychos(which we have become guilty of not doing), then we start to mirror a more Communist rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2012)
Click to expand...

And remember while looking at the above link that this is China. A place where their government has a reputation of ruling with an 'iron fist'.

My point is, where there is mass population, there will be those psychotic few that will figure out a way to kill the innocent using some tool to do it with.
You can take that particular 'tool' out of society and a replacement tool of destruction will be used. Take that tool away, there will be another, etc.etc.etc.

Sooo...is our goal to eliminate the possibility of one of these psycho's from entering a school in the first place to carry out their twisted, evil deeds... or... are we trying to limit his/her choice of tool for the job so we'll have less casualties?
Or are we just trying to instill new laws that will not work at all but do a great job in soothing the conscience of those not smart enough to realize they won't solve the problem?
 
Does it really matter the tool used for the killings?

Maybe he didn't have access to a gun...and maybe in China, he couldn't go to his local library or punch up on the internet from the comforts of his home 'how to make a bomb'.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of gun control. It doesn't mater what weapon is used but if someone goes into a school intent on killing as many people as possible. Then someone with a assault riffle and a few handguns is going kill a lot more than someone with a knife in a limited time period. I think that's obvious.
 
manta49

I am not a fan of gun control. It doesn't mater what weapon is used but if someone goes into a school intent on killing as many people as possible. Then someone with a assault riffle and a few handguns is going kill a lot more than someone with a knife in a limited time period. I think that's obvious.
Click to expand...

If you are not a fan of gun control, then why are you making the gun control argument of Michael Moore, Piers Morgan, Mayor Bloomberg and others? Would you prefer we adopt the civil liberties of China?
 
Last edited:
I think the solution is a combination of gun control and better procedures when it comes to the mentally ill. Locking up just the mentally ill or guns isn't going to solve much. I also don't feel like machete wielding gang members is in the same ball park as a school shooting. In my eyes if one gang kills another with machetes its just one less gang to worry about in the community.
 
If you are not a fan of gun control, then why are you making the gun control argument of Michael Moore, Piers Morgan, Mayor Bloomberg and others? Would you prefer we adopt the civil liberties of China
Click to expand...

I think i am stating the obvious. The sort of questions that are going to be asked whether you like it or not. What you do about it is another question if anything. The answer might be more guns to protect against such incidents is that anti gun.

Talking about adopting civil liberties of china is rubbish and doesn't help the pro gun debate.

As for Piers Morgan he was a idiot when he was here. The only good thing now is that he is in America and you are welcome to him.
 
It doesn't mater what weapon is used but if someone goes into a school intent on killing as many people as possible. Then someone with a assault riffle and a few handguns is going kill a lot more than someone with a knife in a limited time period. I think that's obvious.
Click to expand...

What is also obvious is if you take all guns, knives, baseball bats etc. away from that same person , he/she can go into their kitchen/garage and make a bomb out of ingredients/components from most cabinets and do more damage in a much shorter time frame then they could do with any gun.

Again, the focus has to be on stopping the psycho before they enter the school rather then focusing on cutting down on the body count.
 
Again, the focus has to be on stopping the psycho before they enter the school rather then focusing on cutting down on the body count.
Click to expand...

And yet people are always saying that there "will always be nut-jobs and you won't ever stop that".

So it seems that, whilst stopping the nut-jobs is objective number one, have additional measures to also "reduce the body-count" should be considered...

This can't just be a single pronged approach.

I think that Manta49's questions and points are valid and his intentions, being a gun enthusiast like you and I, are good. There are unpleasant truths to be faced and acknowledged if the impacts to your collective gun rights are to be mitigated.

Some (not necessarily the person I am quoting above) have been somewhat harsh with Manta49 for asking those questions. Given his goals are the same as yours, perhaps they should be given greater consideration.

Saying that some gun control would be the same as adopting Chinese civil liberties is just antagonistic and does not help...
 
Last edited:
And yet people are always saying that there "will always be nut-jobs and you won't ever stop that".
Click to expand...

And as long as there are people, there will be nut-jobs.

So it seems that, whilst stopping the nut-jobs is objective number one, have additional measures to also "reduce the body-count" should be considered...

This can't just be a single pronged approach.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. This cannot be a single pronged approach and there will have to be additional measures in reducing the body count.

Here's a few suggestions(I'm sure there are more):

1) More secure schools with the inability for just anyone to waltz into.... ...Today, I can go to most any school in this state,walk in and maybe(that's a BIG maybe) somebody might ask me my business there. I can then say I'm looking for the Principals office and they will point me in the direction. If I happen to show up during classes when most teachers are in the classrooms, I may be able to get clear to the Principles office without ever seeing anyone. Regardless, I can walk by several school rooms full of children on the way to the principals office.
I know this cause I've done it when my 4 kids went to school and now, more then a couple times picking up my grandchildren at two different elementary schools.

2)Somebody posted outside in school parking lots inquiring and checking the business of visitors.

3)Armed security or trained/armed staff.

4)Camera's/monitors installed.

5)Lastly, as Mr. LaPierre pointed out, furthering the mental health issue's and increasing prosecution(not plea bargaining) thoughs who commit crimes with guns.



If we are serious about drastically reducing or stopping these kind of tragedies from happening we have to be serious about doing it. Re-instilling an AWB is proven to not work, is no more then a self conscience soothing act and is nothing more then putting a Band Aid on a gushing wound that needs stitches.
 
Last edited:
Registration and regulation of gun owners and the mentally ill has historically been a precedent to genocide and eugenics.
Click to expand...

I had better start panicking then as the above happens here. :rolleyes:
 
Again, the focus has to be on stopping the psycho before they enter the school rather then focusing on cutting down on the body count.
Click to expand...

You are not going to be able to do that without turning schools into fortress. Is that what Americans want and what does that say about America. As i have said before secure the schools and the shooter will just go some wear else. Maybe we just have to except these things will happen and there is not a lot can be done to stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top