well, then ARE up. massively up. compared to the rest - #118912472 added by iamnuff at (untitled)

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

Here's the thing, school shootings are occuring more often in the United States and they're certainly an effective method of terrorism. Thus, the government needs to find ways to control them.
But how? What preventative measures can be taken on the subject of massacres and spontaneous attacks?
The most logical way would be to lower their effectiveness and severity, so the best way is to debate on gun control and national security.

#48 to #25 - yunoknow

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

I applaud your efforts in bringing up gun control on this American-dominated site. Good luck.

#87 to #48 - gnawfulevil

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

Implicating that Euro users don't **** talk the U.S. constantly. It goes both ways, your only acknowledging the stuff that offends you though.

#148 to #87 - yunoknow

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

why are you trying to turn this into a whole other topic? it is simply impossible to start a balanced debate about gun control on this site without hearing "oh knives are dangerous too, let's ban all knives" and Americans quoting the second amendment like the bible.

#162 to #148 - gnawfulevil

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

Wasn't altering the topic, was pointing out the fact that both sides are flinging ****. The reason the second amendment and firearms is such a volatile subject on the internet is because, at least in the U.S. it's always being talked about. Literally every other night is some dispute about it and for the most part people have picked their side and are tired of hearing about it. That doesn't justify hostile action against you or anyone who wants to evenly discuss it but it needs to be understood it's an old, and honestly tiresome discussion to have. I like my guns, that's my stance, my neighbor hates me guns, that's cool whatevs. You don't like our gun laws, that's cool. The problem is the subject is volatile by nature and will always evoke hostility towards those that feel exceptionally strong about it. But **** it, I'm sure this will get down voted and all that good **** but hey whatever I'm done ranting in a incoherent fashion.

#41 to #25 - durkadurka

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

Why is the solution ALWAYS "the government has to do something!!!!" Haven't we tried that again and again? To expect a government solution to be effective at this point is beyond dumb.

#51 to #41 - angelusprimus

Reply+2

(06/21/2014)[-]

It works in every other civilized country.
If we take number of mass shootings from EU, Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia, NZ and Singapore (the highest developed countries on par with USA) together, USA still leads about 20 to 1.
With about third of the population.

#163 to #51 - durkadurka

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

Your use of "every civilized country" is just a cop-out. For every example you list there are many more "government solution" countries that have failed, are failing, and will fail. Really those countries you list are exceptions rather than the rule. And right in the midst of all these counties you list sits a contradiction to your point: Switzerland. High gun ownership, low gun crime. Though I don't really believe in making a direct comparison between Switzerland and the US, this does basically torpedo your point.

Looking at just mass shooting statistics is disingenuous at best. Suppose spoons were banned: Of course your statistics will show many less people eating with spoons, but you're not getting the complete picture if you fail to look at eating habits with other cutlery. You need to be looking at violence as a whole. And to that point I'd argue that American culture is more violent. The comparing of America to other countries has been tried and tried again. Other countries (particularly the ones you list) do LOTS of things differently than America, but that's no argument to go and do those things. America is a different place than Europe, Australia ect. The people are different, the culture is different.

A variety of solutions can "work", so your assertion means nothing. One can argue that the Soviet Union (for a time) worked or that Venezuela or Cuba work, but this does not mean that it's the best option, or even the preferable option. Something can work and be ******, as government often is.

Besides, expecting a handful of people in DC to be able to make the right decisions for millions of people is just plain nuts: There's simply too much information to process and this is why we traditionally leave as much decision making as possible up to the individual: They know how to run their own lives better than any bureaucrat . I can get really far into this facet of my argument but I'll leave things at that.

#165 to #163 - angelusprimus

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

You know, I wish that people who keep throwing Switzerland as an example, would actually read up on Switzerland.

First, everyone in Switzerland serves in the militia. What does that mean? That means they all go through thorough mental checkup, those who are too mentally unstable to be part of militia are also banned from having weapons. Second, they all go through very intense weapon handling training. Third, every weapon is registered and licensed. And fourth, while having weapons is easy, getting AMMO is hard. You get it for free on the shooting ranges, but getting them to keep at home is very expensive and very monitored by government.

So yes, Switzerland has a huge gun ownership population, and low crime. Because it is not like in USA free for all, but an orderly system that trains the users and weeds out the unstable.

So, I'm all for people having guns. I have guns. I am also for mandatory mental checkups, registration and training.

And yes, countries on my list are different then America. But if America has a problem, that is so incredibly bigger then anywhere else in the world, don't you think looking into how those that DON'T have the problem dealt with it is in order?

#166 to #165 - durkadurka

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

>You know, I wish that people who keep throwing Switzerland as an example, would actually read up on Switzerland.

That's why I included this bit: "Though I don't really believe in making a direct comparison between Switzerland and the US"

You can't really compare the two. All Switzerland does is show that there's another country in which the people have weapons to little detriment.

I think that any solution that serves to limit freedom and empower government should be considered last. But really our failure lies not really in relation to guns but rather to the people committing these crimes. They've all been white dudes who have had some pretty serious mental issues. The question is then why didn't these people receive help and why did they obtain weapons they weren't supposed to have? The answers to these questions don't have to necessarily come from government. After all, they've already done what they're supposed to in making it illegal for the mentally ill to own firearms. I'm not so sure there's much government could do while respecting the rights of the people. Ultimately I think it's going to take each person better understanding and recognizing mental illness and getting their friends and family help when they need it.

#167 to #166 - angelusprimus

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

Problem why they didn't get help for mental problems is another stepping stone.
Our health system. Most insurance plans do not cover preemptive care and will cover only a few sessions with a psychologist.
In one of the most recent cases boy was getting help, and his psychologist warned the authorities that he is a possible danger to himself and others, and that did not prevent him from buying weapons, because it was just one psychologist's opinion and not a court ordered examination. Because only state or federal examiner can block him from buying it.

Of course that solution is not "get rid of the murder machines!" like hippies are saying. Its also not "Lets arm everyone! That can't possibly go wrong!" like NRA wants. But there should be a way to block dangerously unstable people from weapons and let everyone else have them.

#123 to #51 - anon id: 0e8c9a72

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

If you round to the nearest per million, nobody in the US ever dies from mass shootings.

#34 to #25 - gizmoolv

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

Stopping giving them huge press coverage and gloryfing the suicider would be a good start.

#29 to #25 - tittylovin

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

Or maybe, just maybe, we could talk about improving how our nation deals with people with mental issues.
Maybe try that before taking rights, tools, and property away from innocent people.

#27 to #25 - thegamerslife

Reply+7

(06/21/2014)[-]

fact check dude. school shooting are down in america, but our media sensationalizes them thus making it seem like they are happening a lot more often.

#35 to #27 - iamnuff

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

down from what?

Just because you are having less of them than before doesn't mean you don't still have more than anybody else.

#164 to #35 - durkadurka

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

That's not the point. The point is that they're down regardless of gun legislation. With the expiration of the assault weapons ban, they should have gone up if gun access is directly related.

#169 to #164 - iamnuff

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

well, then ARE up.

massively up.

compared to the rest of the world.

thats the point.

the results from expiring gun legislation would take years or decades to show true, but it's really easy to see the comparison between america and most other places.

frankly, the fact that american schools even have lockdown drills at all really suprised me.

We hear about it on the news, but nobody actually expects some nut with a gun to break into the school a kill a bunch of people, it just doesn't happen in my country.

hell, we spent more time on earthquake drills than on "lockdown" drills, and we havt had a real earthquake in atleast ten years.

#171 to #169 - durkadurka

Reply0

(06/23/2014)[-]

>compared to the rest of the world.
Well that's your problem. I seriously doubt you actually mean "the rest of the world". What you probably mean is "parts of Europe and other cherry picked countries". I'm fairly certain you're neglecting to include a large part of the world.

Of course the US has more gun violence in general. It's a gun culture. You can't expect to eliminate them from a country that literally owes its existence to civilian gun ownership.

So what's important is to look at gun crime as it relates to the severity of gun laws and popularity of gun ownership. Often it's seen that stricter gun laws do not positively influence gun crime statistics.

School shootings really are over-reported here. They're actually pretty damn rare. This becomes apparent when you consider that there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, and most gun homicides involve gangs.With school shootings it's more of a media-generated perception than anything else. The actual likelihood of these things happening is on par with lightning strikes, shark attacks, etc. Again pretty ******* astounding in a country with about enough guns for every man, woman, and child.

Also, shooters tend to choose schools because they know they're one of few places where they will not face anyone who can stop them. It's also important to note that most of these shooters are VERY similar, especially in their histories, mental state, and actions (they take their own lives).

The lock down drills really aren't THAT common: They're done once or twice a year and they're a reaction to any intruder (for obvious reasons). Fire drills are more common. I can't speak for earthquake drills (I didn't grow up in an earthquake prone area) but I'd imagine they do them in places like California.