Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How sad and depressing that thought is. We would be teaching our children that we don't live in a safe country and have to be armed at all times to protect ourselves....just in case. More guns is not the answer.
No we live in a free country. If you want to live in a place where the government tries to fix every issue move to Venezuela or Cuba. Prohibition doesn't work, you will only strip law abiding people of their right to protect themselves, hunt for food, etc. You will not cure violence.
No we live in a free country. If you want to live in a place where the government tries to fix every issue move to Venezuela or Cuba. Prohibition doesn't work, you will only strip law abiding people of their right to protect themselves, hunt for food, etc. You will not cure violence.
And yet, while we have made purchasing firearms MORE difficult and put in more and more barriers...the incidence of school shootings has increased. It isn't the availability of firearms that has changed since the 1960s (or rather they are less available). You could get an "assault rifle" for far less money back then too-I think M1 carbines were somewhere around $30.
The difficulty of buying one has not stymied the fear driven proliferation has it? Fear of something, anything at all results in the sales skyrocketing. Just the mere suggestion Obama was going to enact legislation was enough to have line-ups form outside gun shops.
This is all academic anyway as any attempt to confiscate them would be folly of the worst order.
places like Schools have an abundance of armed security like they do in Israel.
The whole point of the second amendment is that if the rulers have guns, the subjects should be able to have guns too. If you believe in the spirit of the second amendment, you would be against the staff or security having guns unless the students have guns too.
One of the first school shootings to get national attention was in Pearl, Mississippi where my son lives. It happened back in 1997 when Luke Woodham killed his mother and then went to school on a shooting rampage. It gets brought up often when there is another school shooting.
I hold the opinion that we are reaping what we have sown as a people. We teach children that killing is fun, and the more they kill, the higher the level they will reach. We buy them elaborate mock killing entertainment and let them spend hours in isolation or with others whose favorite activity is mock killing. We give them over to this activity and it becomes a passion for which they may yearn to act out for real.
It is remarkable that there are as few shootings as there are, considering how many youths are spending their hours alone in their rooms, on social media, playing games that are also often on social media, and getting more and more depressed. Recent research shows that this is a significant trend, but I haven't seen anything about related school shootings.
I'm not surprised at all and I expect it to continue and probably get worse.
I remember that one. The shooter was stopped by a private citizen, I believe a teacher or a principal, with their personal handgun. IIRC he had to go retrieve it from their vehicle because he was banned from having it on school property. He stopped the shooter after he had killed two students. All after the murderer had stabbed his mother to death. THe shooter was armed with a .30-30 Winchester lever action. A gun first manufactured in 1894.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 02-17-2018 at 12:20 AM..
How many are by female shooters? Women aren't as likely to be mass shooters -- so they can own all the guns -- you boys take a seat.
Women need the guns more to equal things out a little. If a woman leaves an abusive relationship, she can’t have guards protecting her all the time unless she’s rich, but she can get some protection with a gun.
What do you have against Wikipedia? It lists sources at the bottom. Go to the footnotes and click on the link about the 18th Century school shooting. It’s quite a bit different than what we have today, but still probably qualifies.
If you're intelligent--and I think you are--you would understand that it makes no sense to list an Indian massacre as a "school mass shooting" or that if one person gets killed at a school, it's not a "mass shooting." And if you understand that, then you'd understand what I have against Wikipedia. Footnotes don't mean anything if the information listed doesn't make sense or the sources themselves are incorrect.
I remember that one. The shooter was stopped by a private citizen, I believe a teacher or a principal, with their personal handgun. IIRC he had to go retrieve it from their vehicle because he was banned from having it on school property. He stopped the shooter after he had killed two students. All after the murderer had stabbed his mother to death. THe shooter was armed with a .30-30 Winchester lever action. A gun first manufactured in 1894.
Well you changed a few things.
The Assistant Principal l did not stop the shooter from killing. The shooter was stopped as he was leaving the scene of the accident. The AP was in the parking lot and tried to stop him but he was getting away -- another student blocked the car of the shooter so the shooter tried to jump a curb and got stuck.
The Assistant Principal then approached the car and had the shooter get out of the car.
If the Assistant Principal had been in his office with his gun - -he may have missed getting the student as he ran away and then who knows what might have happened.
Are we suggesting that teachers wear holsters with guns in them and that students carry guns at all times?
I think schools should have a VOLUNTARY program like airline pilots do that allows them to enter a program where they are licensed, and trained to use a firearm. These school workers would carry CONCEALED, and nobody would know who is carrying, and who is not. It would be a huge deterrent, and the school would no longer be a SOFT target.
Criminals, and crazies are going to go where they can do the most damage for the longest amount of time, and that means GUN FREE ZONES like schools, sports venues, musical concerts, etc.
If you're intelligent--and I think you are--you would understand that it makes no sense to list an Indian massacre as a "school mass shooting" or that if one person gets killed at a school, it's not a "mass shooting." And if you understand that, then you'd understand what I have against Wikipedia. Footnotes don't mean anything if the information listed doesn't make sense or the sources themselves are incorrect.
I agree with you about the content of the list. An Indian massacre is completely different, just like an act of war would be completely different. They’ve been mentioning that for years, I think just to show how far back our gun violence goes. But it is illuminating, and does shed light on how difficult it is to get gun control in this country. If the Vikings were invading England in a time with guns, perhaps they would have such a gun culture too.
My post was just because I’ve always heard how Wikipedia is a bad source because people can add incorrect information to it, but at least it lists sources. I remember when the Internet was young and you could search real encyclopedias, but they aren’t as easy to find anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
