Students Killed in school shooting...

[Curval]

Originally posted by Toad
Yes, they are. Of course, all firearms deaths are dwarfed by the magnitude of vehicular related deaths. Aren't they? [/B]

There you go again.

Four incidents of school attacks were mentioned.  Knives were used in one, a machete and a flamethrower on two others.  In these three attacks with inanimate objects one death resulted.  In the last instance a gun was used and 17 people were killed.  The logical conclusion that I reached was that guns are significantly more deadly in such attacks thatn the inanimate objects.

You conclude that cars cause more deaths.

I just don't get the connection...and I suspect you are using the car deaths as a red herring argument to try and minimise a very valid point against your arguments.

[midnight Target]

If I may....

The guns aren't the problem, nor are the availability of guns the solution.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by midnight Target
If I may....

The guns aren't the problem, nor are the availability of guns the solution.

 

[Shuckins]

MT has a good point.  I tried to make that same connection by my reference to Israel.  Culture has a lot to do with violence...and the Israelis are highly trained and professional in their use of firearms...and they are CIVILIANS....trained and trusted by their government to do the right thing during a crisis.

[john9001]

new zeeland has lots an lots of sheep, i feel this has a calming influnce on young men as it satisfies their "feelings"and takes their mind off guns and girls.

[bustr]

Curval based on the efficiency of the tool in killing instantanious  numbers you are prescribing it's uniqueness for denial to the population at large. In your post you have made a Freudian slip:

Curval said:
The logical conclusion that I reached was that guns are significantly more deadly in such attacks thatn the inanimate objects.

Guns are inanimate objects, the slip is your ellevating it above the other tools used to kill or maim humans, and not identifying as the primary tool of their deaths, the "DANGEROUS HUMAN" who comitted the act. A human in all of these cases commited the violence against those people while manipulating a tool. Not the tool manipulating the human. Who are you afraid of more, the gun or the man pulling the trigger????????????

[Toad]

Originally posted by Curval

I just don't get the connection...and I suspect you are using the car deaths as a red herring argument to try and minimise a very valid point against your arguments.

Read all that I've posted.

This was early on in response to you asking me to address Nashwan's post.

Toad:

As for Nashwan's stat, clearly there are fewer school shootings in England. Also, in their violent incidents, fewer people die. Note that school violence is not absent there and that it's quite possible that the incident/100,000 is even higher. Someone posted that we've had 10, they've had 4? Can't vouch for the count or the averaging; I'm sure some one will stat it up.

Now, all we have to do is account for any factors other than firearms that may influence this stat. For example, England has always had less violence than the US. What differences in child rearing/parental involvement might there be.

Lastly, once again, youth deaths from in-school violence in both countries are absolutely dwarfed by youth deaths from other causes. Why no outcry over the other lives lost? [/color][/size]

Simply because the "other causes are considered to be "necessary" for a particular poster's lifestyle?

[/u]

I haven't seen that addressed as yet. Many posters come here to tell the US folks how much they prefer the approach their particular country has taken. They tell us they feel their country has the right approach.

However, what I really see is this:

"I don't really see a need for firearms in the particular lifestyle I prefer. Therefore, I see no problem if they are removed from everyone."

Fine. However, when the point is made that autos kill tens of thousands more people than firearms, the response is:

"Well, I need autos in the lifestyle I prefer. Therefore, they cannot be banned and we must accept the loss of life they generate."

If 10,000 die from firearms and you don't like firearms, that's an unacceptable loss.

If 40,000 die from autos but you like autos, that's an acceptable loss.

I'm sure you see the hypocracy without further examples.

[Pongo]

Cars have some other purpose I am sure.  Firearms have none.
The whole argument is so silly that it is hypocrocy to pretend its even a rational debate.

[Skydancer]

Pongo you are right. Its a nonsense.

Take away the guns and you take away a large cause of death. Guns have no other purpose than to kill other people Its what they were origionaly invented for fer chrissakes!

Over here we have shotguns and some hunting weapons. Fine no problem with that. Went Shooting last weekend as it happens. For the first time. Clays only. Was good fun.

Now cue the NRA men telling  me a Glock or a semi automatic is for sport shooting.

I don't need a gun I'm pretty confident the burgler/ criminal is unlikely to have one too. I don't live in fear of crime. I live a happy non paranoid life. Aren't I lucky. Oh And I live in the UK in a major city. In truth  I actualy pity those of you who feel it neccessary to have a gun incase the other guy bad guy, does too. How bloody awfull it must be to live with that fear and paranoia all the time. You should try a gun control country sometime you realy should. You never know you might actualy realise what real freedom is.

ITS FREEDOM FROM FEAR!

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by john9001
new zeeland has lots an lots of sheep, i feel this has a calming influnce on young men as it satisfies their "feelings"and takes their mind off guns and girls.

Actually in 2001 NZ had the highest per capita ratio of teen male suicides.

[Yeager]

has anyone figured out why this young man killed a bunch of people then commited suicide?

I cant imagine killing another human being.  I stumble right out of the gate even trying to comprehend why anyone else would do it, especially when life is not being defended.

[FUNKED1]

Could you foreign know-it-alls at least wait for the bodies to cool down before starting the political indoctrination attempts?

[bustr]

Skydancer said:

The reality is that on this board there are those who believe in the right to bear arms but won't accept responsibility for the inevitable deaths that result from that right and its consequent abuse by some .

How am I responsible for what others do? Why are you attempting to hold law abiding citizens responsible for the acts of criminals and the mistakes of fools? This is the first time you have said something that even I think is BS.

If you come into my country and shoot someone dead, how am I, or any law abiding citizen owner of arms in the United States responsible for your murderous action? You pulled the trigger and denied the other person their life. Not 80 million of us. Are you advocating growing nations of sheep who are no longer required to be responsible for protecting their own lives? And so because they are powerless we assume some collective responsibility and guilt for any misfortunes they encounter? Last time I heard anything like this it was by an avowed Marxist Professor in a class at the University of Maryland. By any chance are you a member of the Socialist Workers Party or any of it's afilliates?
 
Collective guilt in the way you are useing it is a classic Marxist technique for deconstructing a societies fundimental beliefs and freedom. It turns the whole against its self and lays the ground work for politicaly correct speech and conduct codes which enevitabley destroy individuality and personal liberty. And subsiquently the ones spouting it beleive they are the only members of the collective smart enough to guide the collective in any meanigfull and enlightened way.

The responsibility for the abuse of a tool and subsiquence harm to another is the individual who performs the deed. I guess you aint responsible in England if you run down and kill a child on the street by accident with your car? It's the collective lack of accepting responsibility for your accidental abuse of your tool by all the 15million or so safe car drivers in England that's at fault.

I suppose by your logic all 80 million of us lawful american gun owning citizens are guilty and should be punished for the murdered judge in Atlanta. I don't remember being in atlanta shooting anyone that day. I don't think Laz was there either. I beleive whitnesses saw a balck man, 6ft 5inches 220 lbs walk into the court room and choose to kill the judge. This was after he chose to over power his female guard and steal her pistol from her locked locker. But then again some cultures today belive in witchcraft and bad JooJoo. I suppose the collective aura of 80million gun owners over powered the man, placed the gun in his hand, and pulled the trigger against his will.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Pongo
Cars have some other purpose I am sure.  Firearms have none.
The whole argument is so silly that it is hypocrocy to pretend its even a rational debate.

Firearms have no use? Did you really say that?

Or did you mean firearms have no use that you personally consider essential?

Cars have many uses. One of them is recreational, just like firearms.

Cars are the leading cause of death in the US in the 3-33 age group.

The LEADING cause of death. Yet no one here seems to feel a need to deal with that. It's sillly to admit that cars kill tens of thousands more than guns and no one wants to talk about it.

[GtoRA2]

the first one was better Funky lol.