NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4370617.stm

sigh. Let's just wait for the political grandstanding. No doubt Bush will try to ban all heavy metal music (they'll find a connection there somewhere), ignoring every other factor (like gun control or possibly the plight of the American Indians, as it was on a reservation).
I was going to call this thread "Here's what happens when you DON'T ban guns" but that seemed pretty disrespectful for the ppl who have gone through this terrible incident.

Here we go again...

Wow, I'm surprised I haven't seen this on the news. I thought they would have pounced on something like this.

More were found dead at the residence.

yay distraught teens with access to guns!

I'd like to make a point here: I'm not against owning guns but I don't think anyone but the guy with the permit to own the guns should have access to them. If that means voice-coding or finger-print ID scan, so be it.

Another school shooting, time to impose stricter restrictions on movies, tv, and music and remove all gun control laws. The logical thing to do

I'm not going to get into the gun debate just yet here.

I'm going to say only that I'm sorry for what has happened, and I just hope the injured all survive.

Another tragedy. But how many were killed? And what news source do you trust:
FROM OTHER NEWS SITES:
CBS News 10 Dead In High School Rampage - 43 mins ago
Independent Eight killed in Minnesota school shooting - 49 mins ago
Guardian Unlimited Eight Killed in Student Rampage in Minn - 59 mins ago
New York Times 6 People Killed in Minnesota School Shooting - 1 hr ago

I live in a country with gun control, where many people legally own guns and know how to use them. In my country, children know that they are not allowed to use guns unsupervised, and generally cannot gain access to them without a gun owner's permission. In my country, children now that there are better ways of going about things than killing themselves and their peers and teachers.

God I love Canada.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/21/school.shooting/index.html) you can find more on the situation at CNN.com.

I think what we're going to find in this case is now another minority group, Native Americans, are going to be stereotypically associated with school shootings and teenager murderers. I remember when I first saw the reports on Fox News, MNSBC and CNN today that they highlighted that fact as if the audience didn't comprehend the area the shooting took place was on a reservation. We'll see what stereotypes come of this as well as the aftermath...

I think that apart from the obvious initial confusion, that possibly 6 were killed at the school and 2 others found murdered in a home later (his grandparents apparently). So that's why we have '6 Dead in school shooting' and '8 dead in student rampage'. I don't know about the 10. Maybe someone got confused hearing the numbers, or perhaps they've found other bodies.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/21/school.shooting/index.html) you can find more on the situation at CNN.com.

I think what we're going to find in this case is now another minority group, Native Americans, are going to be stereotypically associated with school shootings and teenager murderers. I remember when I first saw the reports on Fox News, MNSBC and CNN today that they highlighted that fact as if the audience didn't comprehend the area the shooting took place was on a reservation. We'll see what stereotypes come of this as well as the aftermath...
Yes, they were quick to pounce on that, weren't they? And hammer it at every opportunity. It's always good to point the finger at a minority whenever possible. A few words about their tragic plight, vague promises and eventually everything's ignored after a few months as the news stations focus on the next BIG thing.

I saw this on my local news. I live just 200 miles from there, in the same state.

And, if i remember correctly, the 2 additional people found dead in the home, were the shooter's grandparents.

my local new's link. http://kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77083

No... :(

For the love of...

These people are in mourning. Let them be. The second anyone turns this political, Democrat or Republican, for their own greedy ends, I will be on their ass like shit on velcro!

My best wishes and prayers to the victims and their families.

My best wishes and prayers to the victims and their families.
same here...

I live in a country with gun control, where many people legally own guns and know how to use them. In my country, children know that they are not allowed to use guns unsupervised, and generally cannot gain access to them without a gun owner's permission. In my country, children now that there are better ways of going about things than killing themselves and their peers and teachers.

God I love Canada.

You have a point. You rarely see this happening in other countries...

I should point out that if other students and teachers had been armed the death toll would have been much lower.

And, if i remember correctly, the 2 additional people found dead in the home, were the shooter's grandparents.

my local new's link. http://kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77083
You are from minnesota also?

You are from minnesota also?
I'm from Denver. I only live in minnesota. Have been since i was 3.

I should point out that if other students and teachers had been armed the death toll would have been much lower.

I doubt if that would really be the case. He'd already shot a security guard (who presumably would have been armed). Imagine all the victims caught in the cross fire when a school full of panicked teenagers pull out guns and start shooting.

This is somehow related to why I wasn't able to buy Halo PC at Target today, isn't it?

I'm from Denver. I only live in minnesota. Have been since i was 3.
Fair enough :) my bad for wording it like I did

Have they ever had a school massacre in France?
Switzerland?
Denmark?
Holland?
Norway?
Sweden?

?

??

Fair enough :) my bad for wording it like I did
That's okay. :) no need to worry about it.

I doubt if that would really be the case. He'd already shot a security guard (who presumably would have been armed). Imagine all the victims caught in the cross fire when a school full of panicked teenagers pull out guns and start shooting.

That is a bad assumption. Generally, school security guards aren't armed unless they are police officers.

I wouldn't assume that all of the teenagers would just pull guns and start shooting. I'd assume that they would pull out guns aim carefully and shoot if necessary. Of course, I also assume that any teenager carrying a gun legally would would have proper training.

I will pray for the victims family, and the family of the shooter. May they all pull through this. I thought Columbine was suspose to wake our nation up. :(

That is a bad assumption. Generally, school security guards aren't armed unless they are police officers.

Okay, wasn't completely sure whether security guards would have guns. I'm sure that varies by country and I'm not American.

I wouldn't assume that all of the teenagers would just pull guns and start shooting. I'd assume that they would pull out guns aim carefully and shoot if necessary. Of course, I also assume that any teenager carrying a gun legally would would have proper training.

And when something goes wrong in any enclosed area, do people calmly walked out, waiting for people in front of them to move first? No, all hell breaks loose and people get trampled.

Human behaviour when we are under threat is unpredictable at best. Some people may stay cool in a crisis but others panic and act before thinking.

Hey everyone i'm not sure what the point of this thread is but to the Christians out there and anyone else who feels like it could you please pray for all those involved including and maybe especially, the shooters parents...

The deaths of these people are tragic, and my heart goes out to the familes and friends of the victims.

That said, the saddest thing about this situation is that, when all is said and done...nothing will change.

This may cause someone to be on my ass like velcro:

This shooting occured on the Red Lake Reservation, one of the poorest reservations in Minnesota. Although many tribes in Minnesota benefit greatly from casinos, the Red Lake tribe receives little profit from theirs, which is located far away from population centers or major tourist attractions. The state government currently receives no money from Indian casinos. The biggest deal in local politics lately is how Governor Pawlenty, after threatening to force the tribes to share casino profits with the state, recently cut a deal with the three poorest tribes including the Red Lake band of Ojibway, to open a casino in the Minneapolis area that would share profits with the state. This plan is causing the Republicans in MN government to see dollar signs, and the tribes not included in the plan to get their undies in a bunch. Polls suggest the average Minnesotan supports wringing gambling money from the Tribes. Now, I'm not suggesting that this shooting had anything to do with this political development. But I do wonder how the shootings will affect all this casino talk.

Just to answer the political question, which is what the media will make this about anyway - the liberals are screwed on this one. The liberal blogs and forums were calling for gun bans 10 minutes after the story was reported, but common sense will prevail in this situation, since:

The guns belonged to a police officer, who was killed before they were taken. You can't rightly ban a retired cop from owning a gun.

Second, none of the guns were "assault" weapons, so liberals can't blame Bush for the shooting and claim it occurred because he let the AWB expire. (Which was useless from Day 1, anyway)

Third, the Constitution doesn't apply on sovereign Indian land. This was a Chippewa band, I believe.

You can practically hear the sighs of missed opportunity coming from the DNC.

Well from the latest news, its 10 dead (2 Grandparents, 6 shot and killed at the school and 2 who died of their wounds later) and 14 wounded... :(

Just hope those wounded will live through it.

The guns belonged to a police officer, who was killed before they were taken. You can't rightly ban a retired cop from owning a gun.
You can practically hear the sighs of missed opportunity coming from the DNC.

Just curious: what is special about a retired cop that makes them an exception to a ban on guns?

I do agree, though, that the gun control issue isn't all that applicable here. While this shooting probably wouldn't have happened in a culture where guns are less prominent, there is nothing about this case that really makes an argument either way. That's why perhaps Indians' rights are a more appropriate topic if we are to make a political discussion of this. The school where the shootings occured was 100% Indian and had a 57% graduation rate. I would attribute this to past US governments' genocidal policy towards Indians and recent governments' failure to redress these injustices.

Just curious: what is special about a retired cop that makes them an exception to a ban on guns?

Few gun-banners would take guns away from police. Presumably, police are better trained and educated as to when and how to responsibly use a gun. The point is, the situation that happened today would be just as likely to happen in a "gun-free" society, if that were possible, as it is in ours. If you're going to designate that certain people, such as police, must be able to defend the public with firearms, then things like this will happen. This wasn't the case with the Colorado killings 7 years ago, since the guns were black-market purchased (something else a gun ban can't stop).

Just to answer the political question, which is what the media will make this about anyway - the liberals are screwed on this one. The liberal blogs and forums were calling for gun bans 10 minutes after the story was reported, but common sense will prevail in this situation, since:

The guns belonged to a police officer, who was killed before they were taken. You can't rightly ban a retired cop from owning a gun.

Second, none of the guns were "assault" weapons, so liberals can't blame Bush for the shooting and claim it occurred because he let the AWB expire. (Which was useless from Day 1, anyway)

Third, the Constitution doesn't apply on sovereign Indian land. This was a Chippewa band, I believe.

You can practically hear the sighs of missed opportunity coming from the DNC.


:headbang: They were trying to keep the politics out of this. Why break it for something so asinine?

The idiocy of the statements above, is surpassed only by your later statement that "the situation that happened today would be just as likely to happen in a 'gun-free' society, if that were possible, as it is in ours." Kids cannot go on a killing spree and shoot 10 people in a "gun-free society."

And your statement about the Constitution is bizarre.

Don't respond. Just be quiet. Start another thread if you wish to argue your views.

:headbang: They were trying to keep the politics out of this. Why break it for something so asinine?

The idiocy of the statements above, is surpassed only by your later statement that "the situation that happened today would be just as likely to happen in a 'gun-free' society, if that were possible, as it is in ours." Kids cannot go on a killing spree and shoot 10 people in a "gun-free society."

And your statement about the Constitution is bizarre.

Don't respond. Just be quiet. Start another thread if you wish to argue your views.

What about kitchen knives, bats, tennis rackets, baseballs (very deadly if thrown correctly), and similar things? In a gun-free society, these would be the killers.

And your statement about the Constitution is bizarre.

Don't respond. Just be quiet. Start another thread if you wish to argue your views.

My statement on the Constitution is true. The Reservation in question is a sovereign, foreign nation to the United States. The land was deeded to the tribe by the French, not the U.S., and although Congress has oversight in some matters, their laws are not subject to the Constitution in the way ours are.

I think we saw in '98 that politics and tragic situations cannot be divorced from oneanother at all times. I'm trying to learn, and organize the facts of the matter. If we don't analyze situations critically, we're asking for ignorance to win out.

I will pray for the victims family, and the family of the shooter. May they all pull through this. I thought Columbine was suspose to wake our nation up. :(
What do you mean by that?

Just to answer the political question, which is what the media will make this about anyway - the liberals are screwed on this one. The liberal blogs and forums were calling for gun bans 10 minutes after the story was reported, but common sense will prevail in this situation, since:

The guns belonged to a police officer, who was killed before they were taken. You can't rightly ban a retired cop from owning a gun.
You can't rightly ban any free adult from owning a gun, but that hasn't prevented such bans from happening. Retired cops living in Washington DC are prohibited from having guns in their homes.

My statement on the Constitution is true. The Reservation in question is a sovereign, foreign nation to the United States. The land was deeded to the tribe by the French, not the U.S., and although Congress has oversight in some matters, their laws are not subject to the Constitution in the way ours are.

I am more than familiar with the soveriegnty of tribes. I used to represent defendants in tribal court.

Your statement was bizarre in that the Constitution has nothing to do with the issue. At most it would be a (flawed) argument against gun control, not for it.

I think we saw in '98 that politics and tragic situations cannot be divorced from oneanother at all times. I'm trying to learn, and organize the facts of the matter. If we don't analyze situations critically, we're asking for ignorance to win out

It would have been nice if you had done this in another thread. Unfortunately, I've made it worse.

I'm not sure what you are referring to re 1998 (and I don't really care), but your statement about politics and tragic situations applies all over the place. Think 2001.

Have they ever had a school massacre in France?
Switzerland?
Denmark?
Holland?
Norway?
Sweden?

?

??

They had one in Germany, in Erfurt. In The Netherlands it was a teacher that was stabbed to death, not quite the same, but equally disturbing. It can happen everywhere, you just need a couple of sick bastards.

What about kitchen knives, bats, tennis rackets, baseballs (very deadly if thrown correctly), and similar things? In a gun-free society, these would be the killers.
True, in my country people kill each other with kitchen knives and axes (!). Actually my country is everything but a gun-free society, we have more guns per population than Americans but we just don't use them to kill each other. Also it's quite hard to kill 10 people with a kitchen knife.

I am more than familiar with the soveriegnty of tribes. I used to represent defendants in tribal court.

Your statement was bizarre in that the Constitution has nothing to do with the issue. At most it would be a (flawed) argument against gun control, not for it.



It would have been nice if you had done this in another thread. Unfortunately, I've made it worse.

I'm not sure what you are referring to re 1998 (and I don't really care), but your statement about politics and tragic situations applies all over the place. Think 2001.


Why is the Constitution relevant? Hmm.. can you think of any part of it that has to do with firearms, and whether the citizenry are allowed to keep them? What I'm saying is that the issue can't be mangled by U.S. politicians calling for X or Y interpretation of the Constitution, since it doesn't apply to sovereign nations not a part of the U.S. The place of today's attack is one of only 2 fully sovereign Indian Nations in the country.

I'm not arguing in favor of gun control, but if I were, I couldn't use today's shooting as a case in my favor to challenge the system at large - that's the significance of the Tribe's Constitutional status.

This is what we called the 'Free World' with free will to gun people down... :mp5:

I see three things that need to exist for these things to happen.
1. The motive - The killer needs to have some desire to kill others. Hatred is probably quite common in high schools. For young males, this hatred can easily become homicidal intent.
2. A lack of concern for the consequences - If the killer is suicidal, he's not worried about what will happen to him.
3. The means - the killer needs lethal weaponry to kill.

I really think that instead of just concentrating on the #3, we should really look at the first two.

If it is indeed the case that homicidal and suicidal intent are common in public schools, there must be a fundamental flaw in the public education system. In other words, we're doing it wrong.

What about kitchen knives, bats, tennis rackets, baseballs (very deadly if thrown correctly), and similar things? In a gun-free society, these would be the killers.
But less killers and there'd be less deaths-with a gun you only have to point and shoot with a knife you have to overcome the person, stab him in the right place-while he's fighting, you cannot kill 14 people with a knife-not at once. You can with a gun.

There'd be, and are, far less killers in a gun free society. Your less likly to die if someone throws a baseball at you than if someone shot you.

Just two situations okay. 1)A man is angry at his nabour and goes, gets his gun and shoots the nabour dead.

2)A man is angry at his nabout, goes gets a kitchen knife and trys to kill his nabour.

Now which nabour is most likly to die, the one being shot or the one under the threat of being knifed?

What about kitchen knives, bats, tennis rackets, baseballs (very deadly if thrown correctly), and similar things? In a gun-free society, these would be the killers.

This is not the case. In societies where guns are more tightly regulated in many cases the weapon of choice for homicides are still the guns, though usually the profile of the killer is different.

My deepest sympathy to the families of the victims.

This sort of thing is turning into an annual event...

Edit: I stand corrected

This sort of thing is turning into an annual event in America...

Today's shooting wasn't in America.

Also, the last major incident was 6 years ago.. and by that I mean a spree killing - students kill each other every day, naturally, over personal quarrels and gang activity, etc.

I see three things that need to exist for these things to happen.
1. The motive - The killer needs to have some desire to kill others. Hatred is probably quite common in high schools. For young males, this hatred can easily become homicidal intent.
2. A lack of concern for the consequences - If the killer is suicidal, he's not worried about what will happen to him.
3. The means - the killer needs lethal weaponry to kill.

I really think that instead of just concentrating on the #3, we should really look at the first two.

If it is indeed the case that homicidal and suicidal intent are common in public schools, there must be a fundamental flaw in the public education system. In other words, we're doing it wrong.
i cant agree more here. while i am also for gun control, there are other factors involved. i wouldnt mind hearing about his music listening habits, because i think it will blow the 'metal' theory out of the water. then again, it might not. but the thing is this: no matter where the school is, there will always be 'groups' and in particular groups that look down on other groups. this is also my theory on columbine as well. i know it seems bad to drag this up, and my prayers go with the families, but how many of the victims would have picked on those two, and also how many would have picked on the killer in this incident? who knows, we might never know, because the motives have died with the shooters. but after hearing about columbine, and knowing from my own high school experience, i wrote these lyrics:

ABUSE THE LOOSERS
PUT THEM DOWN
RUN THEM INTO THE GROUND
ABUSE THE LOOSERS
JUST FOR FUN
THEN THEY GRAB GUNS
AND YOU WONDER WHY THEY TURN ON YOU


btw, i am from australia. we dont have the access to guns that the US does.

Today's shooting wasn't in America.

Also, the last major incident was 6 years ago.. and by that I mean a spree killing - students kill each other every day, naturally, over personal quarrels and gang activity, etc.
are you referring to the one this thread is about? 'cause america IS where this shooting took place--i LIVE in minnesota, USA.

are you referring to the one this thread is about? 'cause america IS where this shooting took place--i LIVE in minnesota, USA.
i think they are refering to the fact that it took place on soveriegn(sp?) indian land, technically not a part of america

are you referring to the one this thread is about? 'cause america IS where this shooting took place--i LIVE in minnesota, USA.

I know it's not terribly important, but the shooting didn't occur on U.S. territory, technically.

http://www.redlakenation.org/

I know it's not terribly important, but the shooting didn't occur on U.S. territory, technically.

http://www.redlakenation.org/
I see what you mean. My bad. Thanks. :)

to all that suffered, My thoughts and sympathies.

I live in a country with gun control, where many people legally own guns and know how to use them. In my country, children know that they are not allowed to use guns unsupervised, and generally cannot gain access to them without a gun owner's permission. In my country, children now that there are better ways of going about things than killing themselves and their peers and teachers.

God I love Canada.

In America we fear teaching our children about the evils of guns and rather avoid the subject entirely, but are rabidly against them anyway. Well, atleast the blue states.
I've got a rifle and a few pistols in my house(rifle is mine, pistols are my dad's) and sometimes I get absurdly pissed off, but I know better than to grab my rifle and seek some vengeance. I used to threaten to kill people, like I'd shoot them in the head, but having fired a gun made me realize how much more serious that kind of thing is.

i cant agree more here. while i am also for gun control, there are other factors involved. i wouldnt mind hearing about his music listening habits, because i think it will blow the 'metal' theory out of the water. then again, it might not. but the thing is this: no matter where the school is, there will always be 'groups' and in particular groups that look down on other groups. this is also my theory on columbine as well. i know it seems bad to drag this up, and my prayers go with the families, but how many of the victims would have picked on those two, and also how many would have picked on the killer in this incident? who knows, we might never know, because the motives have died with the shooters. but after hearing about columbine, and knowing from my own high school experience, i wrote these lyrics:



btw, i am from australia. we dont have the access to guns that the US does.


You've made some good points. However, people need to realize that if they are put down and rejected, you don't "take 'em out". I see where the mentality comes from. However, taking someone's life for some highschool issue/issues, is insane. These people need therapy. And don't think I don't understand the LIKELY motive here. I think it was stated well by Resi. However, people need to be strong enough not to let ANY kind of bullying, music, movie, or media affect them in such a way. This suggests a problem: likely severe depression from constant bullying. My thoughts are with the families of the victims and the shooters. The fams of the shooters are going to be villified, no doubt. :(

BTW, gun control is impossible here. Anyone can get one illegally. It's too late for that in the U.S. :mad:

What kind of society needs security guards at schools?
Here (England) we have caretakers, teachers and dinner ladies. And dinner ladies are ferocious, they could take on any one.

Let's hope something changes after this.

My condolences to the victims families...

You've made some good points. However, people need to realize that if they are put down and rejected, you don't "take 'em out". I see where the mentality comes from. However, taking someone's life for some highschool issue/issues, is insane. These people need therapy. And don't think I don't understand the LIKELY motive here. I think it was stated well by Resi. However, people need to be strong enough not to let ANY kind of bullying, music, movie, or media affect them in such a way. This suggests a problem: likely severe depression from constant bullying. My thoughts are with the families of the victims and the shooters. The fams of the shooters are going to be villified, no doubt. :(

BTW, gun control is impossible here. Anyone can get one illegally. It's too late for that in the U.S. :mad:
not everyone can afford therapists, and as they say, prevention is better than cure. maybe they need to look into bullying in schools and such. i know i didnt go to the extent that i would kill someone, but i did feel as though i didnt fit in anyware.

What kind of society needs security guards at schools?
Here (England) we have caretakers, teachers and dinner ladies. And dinner ladies are ferocious, they could take on any one.

Let's hope something changes after this.

My condolences to the victims families...

We also have more serial killers than any other country. Sometimes I think our "melting pot" is nothing but the twisted leftovers... :(

I'm not anti-American... I AM one, however, I have to say, even a guy I used to walk to high school with... pretty decent, but bad temper (not with me!) is in prison for murder. Another blew his head off the day before graduation... He was an alcoholic... I'm going off on a tangent here, but I just don't get it.

I have studied serial killers EXTENSIVELY! I'm aware of some nasties in England, but no country has them like the U.S. It's puzzling... Same with these mass shootings... :confused:

not everyone can afford therapists, and as they say, prevention is better than cure. maybe they need to look into bullying in schools and such. i know i didnt go to the extent that i would kill someone, but i did feel as though i didnt fit in anyware.

Bullying will never stop. In some schools it's gotten downright sadistic. But murdering your oppressor is not the answer. At my old high school, things that happened on Homecoming night resulted in the high school BANNING homecoming! (I'm referring to bullying... sick things... like tying someone to a tree with duct tape and pissing all over them...) WTF? We all used to just throw toilet paper in trees!!! I'm repulsed. And these ridiculous parents who say "kids will be kids". Sorry, but in such a situation, "kids will be monsters" is more appropriate and any parent who thinks that pissing on someone duct taped to a tree and leaving them there is harmless fun is messed up. Gee, I wonder how the kids got that way... :mad:

Bullying will never stop. In some schools it's gotten downright sadistic. But murdering your oppressor is not the answer. At my old high school, things that happened on Homecoming night resulted in the high school BANNING homecoming! (I'm referring to bullying... sick things... like tying someone to a tree with duct tape and pissing all over them...) WTF? We all used to just throw toilet paper in trees!!! I'm repulsed. And these ridiculous parents who say "kids will be kids". Sorry, but in such a situation, "kids will be monsters" is more appropriate and any parent who thinks that pissing on someone duct taped to a tree and leaving them there is harmless fun is messed up. Gee, I wonder how the kids got that way... :mad:
What has changed in schools? Bullying has always been in the public schools, but you never heard of school shootings in the 70's and 80's. Has our culture gotten more violent? I think so.

What has changed in schools? Bullying has always been in the public schools, but you never heard of school shootings in the 70's and 80's. Has our culture gotten more violent? I think so.

Probably. My dad and uncle used to store rifles in their lockers at school for when they'd hunt on weekends or after school. Many schools used to have shooting teams, even though a few still do. There's probably some cultural influences that aren't helping, not just access to guns.

Sadly, this seems to have been even more preventable in the shooting yesterday. Supposedly, the kid was being treated for some mental instability at the time, so there was some notice.

I think the problem in the US when it comes to guns aren't the people who own machine guns or any other oh-so-bad assault weapon. Those usually know how to handle them, etc. Problem are your common John Smith who has a 9mm somewhere in his desk. Then it gets stolen, whoops. Then someone gets killed with it, whoops... Or, he accidently shoots his own silly ass. I mean, there are always a few cases worldwide where people shoot themselves when trying to clean their gun, so much for training and save handling. Or kids who accidently shoot a friend, cause they found daddy's loaded pistol "well" hidden under an old shirt in his closet. Happens every now and then.

Guns don't kill people. You always need some assclown to pull the trigger.

Besides, anyone can get a gun illegaly anywhere. Even here in Austria. If you have the money, you can get anything.

As for this case, I'd like to know one thing.

What made that guy to go that far? I mean, what caused him to be that desperate to go ahead, kill a bunch of people, and then himself (and the first idiotc German journalist who works for the BILD and says "oh he played Counter Strike, that's the reason" will get shot; Same goes for the first one who says "oh, he listened to Marilyn Manson"). There has to be a reason, there always is. Just that, in this case, it's a bit hard to find out. He's dead after all.

"However, people need to be strong enough not to let ANY kind of bullying..."

Agreed, but that's easier said than done. Since every human is an individual, every single one of them reacts differently to a situation. It just doesn't work that easily. The human mind is a bitch (so is the subconsciousness).

I also don't think that it's just the schools that changed. That's too easy. What about the rest? For example... the families? Blaming it just on the school or some game is not going to help at all. I mean, I just need to turn on the TV and I start to wonder. There's this show "The Supernannies" around here, where some first-class nanny helps families and their "problem"-kids. In those families, whenever I see it, there's no normal communication, there's a lot of yelling and stuff. There's something wrong there.

Therapy, yes, but how? First of, how will you find out about those? Counseling? That's merely symptom treatment and alibi acting (just take the communication within some families, or the lack of said. I often wonder when I see how people talk with their kids), and was only brought up after Columbine. The current case somewhat proves that the idea failed. Then, if you find them, what then? Force them into therapy? Forced therapy doesn't work when it comes to psychology, it only works if the patient does it from his own free will. The patient might as well turn against the counselor and shoot him first. Also, not everyone who has thoughts like this actually goes ahead and does it. I didn't, and I really really really really wanted to take dad's gun to school once just to see the assholes there on their knees and begging for their lives. I would have enjoyed seeing them pissing their pants in fear. But well, I didn't do it, but the idea and fantasy was there for a long time, even after I had long finished school. (That was in a time when having non-european looking kids in a classroom or even school in Austria was extremly strange to most people and their kids, and I can tell you, it's not funny when you're on the receiving end.)

Teasing and bullying can really hurt, and it's not so easy to just be strong.

Bullying will never stop. In some schools it's gotten downright sadistic. But murdering your oppressor is not the answer. At my old high school, things that happened on Homecoming night resulted in the high school BANNING homecoming! (I'm referring to bullying... sick things... like tying someone to a tree with duct tape and pissing all over them...) WTF? We all used to just throw toilet paper in trees!!! I'm repulsed. And these ridiculous parents who say "kids will be kids". Sorry, but in such a situation, "kids will be monsters" is more appropriate and any parent who thinks that pissing on someone duct taped to a tree and leaving them there is harmless fun is messed up. Gee, I wonder how the kids got that way... :mad:
this is my point exactly. in my 'unofficial' senior year (yr 12), the students did so many things wrong on 'muck up day' at our school, that in my 'official' senior year (yr 13, i stayed back a year), muck up day was very heavily scrutinised..... although, i did like it, on the yr 12 on, when i found out they put "JPSS class of 1998' on the local private catholic school's lawn. but yes, i admit, parents do have a large part to play in a child's upbringing, and if they condone the kind of things that you said, well makes me wonder....

I think the problem in the US when it comes to guns aren't the people who own machine guns or any other oh-so-bad assault weapon. Those usually know how to handle them, etc. Problem are your common John Smith who has a 9mm somewhere in his desk. Then it gets stolen, whoops. Then someone gets killed with it, whoops... Or, he accidently shoots his own silly ass. I mean, there are always a few cases worldwide where people shoot themselves when trying to clean their gun, so much for training and save handling. Or kids who accidently shoot a friend, cause they found daddy's loaded pistol "well" hidden under an old shirt in his closet. Happens every now and then.

Guns don't kill people. You always need some assclown to pull the trigger.

Besides, anyone can get a gun illegaly anywhere. Even here in Austria. If you have the money, you can get anything.

As for this case, I'd like to know one thing.

What made that guy to go that far? I mean, what caused him to be that desperate to go ahead, kill a bunch of people, and then himself (and the first idiotc German journalist who works for the BILD and says "oh he played Counter Strike, that's the reason" will get shot; Same goes for the first one who says "oh, he listened to Marilyn Manson"). There has to be a reason, there always is. Just that, in this case, it's a bit hard to find out. He's dead after all.

"However, people need to be strong enough not to let ANY kind of bullying..."

Agreed, but that's easier said than done. Since every human is an individual, every single one of them reacts differently to a situation. It just doesn't work that easily. The human mind is a bitch (so is the subconsciousness).

Therapy, yes, but how? First of, how will you find out about those? Counseling? That's merely symptom treatment and alibi acting (just take the communication within some families, or the lack of said. I often wonder when I see how people talk with their kids), and was only brought up after Columbine. The current case somewhat proves that the idea failed. Then, if you find them, what then? Force them into therapy? Forced therapy doesn't work when it comes to psychology, it only works if the patient does it from his own free will. The patient might as well turn against the counselor and shoot him first. Also, not everyone who has thoughts like this actually goes ahead and does it. I didn't, and I really really really really wanted to take dad's gun to school once just to see the assholes there on their knees and begging for their lives. I would have enjoyed seeing them pissing their pants in fear. But well, I didn't do it, but the idea and fantasy was there for a long time, even after I had long finished school. (That was in a time when having non-european looking kids in a classroom or even school in Austria was extremly strange to most people and their kids, and I can tell you, it's not funny when you're on the receiving end.)

Teasing and bullying can really hurt, and it's not so easy to just be strong.

You HAVE to be strong. That's all there is to it. I've been on the receiving end at times, and I fought back... this was all verbal... girls fight that way, but no less painful... You look them in the eye and prove they're not getting to you. In my case, I became respected, and these people actually began being NICE to me...

There's so much to it. When I said "go to therapy", my point is only that these people are at a point where they can't deal w/things themselves. I'm not saying that it will always work... an unwilling participant will not change (ie: the Columbine shooters). There is no one answer. If the bullying could be stopped, a lot of this could be stopped. When bullying becomes physical, the bully should face SERIOUS consequences... such as being expelled from school, face assault charges, do some jail time, etc. Interrupt their life in a harsh way. It may not work. Why not try? :confused:

I've only skimmed the comments here, but remember this:

This isn't about gun control.
This isn't about politics.
This isn't about society.
This isn't about education.
This isn't about music.

It's about upbringing.

I've only skimmed the comments here, but remember this:

This isn't about gun control.
This isn't about politics.
This isn't about society.
This isn't about education.
This isn't about music.

It's about upbringing.

Also well said, however upbringing doesn't help when someone is psychotically depressed and untreated... :(

*sigh* just great. how, on top of a big pile of dead people, we also are going to have to revisit all the same crapheaps as we did when Columbine happened:

"Music makes kids evil!"

"Videogames make kids evil!"

"Bullies make kids evil!"

"Guns make kids evil!"

"Hey, might the parenting be some kind of factor in this?"
"SHUT UP! THEY'RE GRIEVING! HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT PARENTS SHOULD HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR REARING AND CARING FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN!!!"

You HAVE to be strong. That's all there is to it. I've been on the receiving end at times, and I fought back... this was all verbal... girls fight that way, but no less painful... You look them in the eye and prove they're not getting to you. In my case, I became respected, and these people actually began being NICE to me...

There's so much to it. When I said "go to therapy", my point is only that these people are at a point where they can't deal w/things themselves. I'm not saying that it will always work... an unwilling participant will not change (ie: the Columbine shooters). There is no one answer. If the bullying could be stopped, a lot of this could be stopped. When bullying becomes physical, the bully should face SERIOUS consequences... such as being expelled from school, face assault charges, do some jail time, etc. Interrupt their life in a harsh way. It may not work. Why not try? :confused:
therapy: as i have stated before, not everyone can afford therapy
bullying: how many times have teachers turned a blind eye to these soughts of things? or if they have raised the issue, it gets ignored by the higher ups? also, there is the factor of, since the removal of the cane, what real punishments are there in schools?

Also well said, however upbringing doesn't help when someone is psychotically depressed and untreated... :(
sure it does: in a propper upbringing, such a mental condition wouldn't go unnoticed and untreated.

*sigh* just great. how, on top of a big pile of dead people, we also are going to have to revisit all the same crapheaps as we did when Columbine happened:

"Music makes kids evil!"

"Videogames make kids evil!"

"Bullies make kids evil!"

"Guns make kids evil!"

"Hey, might the parenting be some kind of factor in this?"
"SHUT UP! THEY'RE GRIEVING! HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT PARENTS SHOULD HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR REARING AND CARING FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN!!!"
good point. i have stated offline before about these kinds of things:
how many 'innocent' victims were there really? bit different here, with the security guard, but come on, he went to what? 2 classrooms? means he did have an agenda. also, where are his parents? was he living with his grandparents?

sure it does: in a propper upbringing, such a mental condition wouldn't go unnoticed and untreated.
there is a lot of debate over 'mental conditions', and i am wondering how much of it is to line psychiatrist(sp?) pockets.... to me, depression can not only be brought about by a chemical imbalence, but also can be influenced/triggered by the surroundings, or the upbrinnging of a person.

there is a lot of debate over 'mental conditions', and i am wondering how much of it is to line psychiatrist(sp?) pockets.... to me, depression can not only be brought about by a chemical imbalence, but also can be influenced/triggered by the surroundings, or the upbrinnging of a person.
no arguments here. i'd say that's probably pretty likely.

good point. i have stated offline before about these kinds of things:
how many 'innocent' victims were there really? bit different here, with the security guard, but come on, he went to what? 2 classrooms? means he did have an agenda. also, where are his parents? was he living with his grandparents?
Grandparents. I heard on the news that the shooter killed the grandparents before heading off to the school.

*sigh* just great. how, on top of a big pile of dead people, we also are going to have to revisit all the same crapheaps as we did when Columbine happened:

"Music makes kids evil!"

"Videogames make kids evil!"

"Bullies make kids evil!"

"Guns make kids evil!"

"Hey, might the parenting be some kind of factor in this?"
"SHUT UP! THEY'RE GRIEVING! HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT PARENTS SHOULD HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR REARING AND CARING FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN!!!"

Thank you, saved me from saying it.

Goddamnit, if I could without actually killing anyone, I'd go on a killing spree to show just how many people can be killed with the absence of guns... of course, I can't, and I can't simulate it without people being in on it, so it's no happening...

Grandparents. I heard on the news that the shooter killed the grandparents before heading off to the school.


It was just reported that the shooter's father commited suicide-not recently, but I dont know when and his mother is in a nursing home as a result of a brain injury. I think we are going to get a lot more details that this was not a happy well adjusted boy.
And I agree- this cant become anything political. Just a severly disturbed person who killed several and hurt many more lives and then killed himself.

Hmm. Kid kills grandparents, takes grandfather's guns (grandfather was a policeman) and goes to school and kills.

Shoots unarmed school security guard at the metal detectors at the front door.

Once again, hearing the "miserable loner who was teased" theory from news pundits.

Is there no other reasonable outlet for a "miserable loner"?

Hmm. Kid kills grandparents, takes grandfather's guns (grandfather was a policeman) and goes to school and kills.

Shoots unarmed school security guard at the metal detectors at the front door.

Once again, hearing the "miserable loner who was teased" theory from news pundits.

Is there no other reasonable outlet for a "miserable loner"?
Could be an issue, that these things aren't picked up early enough and dealt with. But in the US who would pay? Can't say there is any easy out here, although it's not the fault of guns, they do make a bad situation worse.

Could be an issue, that these things aren't picked up early enough and dealt with. But in the US who would pay? Can't say there is any easy out here, although it's not the fault of guns, they do make a bad situation worse.

As in the Columbine situation, the guns were obtained illegally. In this case, directly from a policeman (in Washington, DC, a substantial number of crime guns are obtained by theft from the DC Police Department).

Additionally, the Columbine shooters also had homemade bombs. It's not hard to make one out of readily available materials.

An enterprising young misfit could also make various poison gases - which would be extremely effective in a confined space like a school building.

Given enough angst, and no prediction from parents, teachers, or police, someone with a modicum of intelligence could lay waste to a school.

I remember after Columbine there was a brief discussion of bullying and teasing, but then it was swept under the rug. I bet they'll sweep it under the rug again. With all the personal problems this kid had, I'm surprised that no one was on top of it.

Have they ever had a school massacre in France?
Switzerland?
Denmark?
Holland?
Norway?
Sweden?

?

??

Not that it is terribly important, but we did have a school shooting in Denmark about ten years ago.
A mentally ill student from the university in Aarhus shot one girl, injured another and killed himself.

Thank you, saved me from saying it.

Goddamnit, if I could without actually killing anyone, I'd go on a killing spree to show just how many people can be killed with the absence of guns... of course, I can't, and I can't simulate it without people being in on it, so it's no happening...

it is possible to go on a killing spree without guns, just as it is possible to go to the moon. However, it is much easier to go on a killing spree with a gun than without one.

As in the Columbine situation, the guns were obtained illegally. In this case, directly from a policeman (in Washington, DC, a substantial number of crime guns are obtained by theft from the DC Police Department).

Additionally, the Columbine shooters also had homemade bombs. It's not hard to make one out of readily available materials.

An enterprising young misfit could also make various poison gases - which would be extremely effective in a confined space like a school building.

Given enough angst, and no prediction from parents, teachers, or police, someone with a modicum of intelligence could lay waste to a school.

I remember after Columbine there was a brief discussion of bullying and teasing, but then it was swept under the rug. I bet they'll sweep it under the rug again. With all the personal problems this kid had, I'm surprised that no one was on top of it.
If they do sweep it under the rug again, there will be Hell to pay... :mad: :mp5:

And mother nature may have to be the one to have to step in (ie, uber-nasty hurricane levels washington dc or nyc, for example)...

Not that it is terribly important, but we did have a school shooting in Denmark about ten years ago.
A mentally ill student from the university in Aarhus shot one girl, injured another and killed himself.

There has been on in Germany. And in Japan, there's been a school massacre with a kitchen knife.

Columbine proved that they didn't just have access to illegal guns. They built homemade bombs. Out of readily available materials.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry could also make noxious or poisonous gases that would be effective in a confined space like a building. You could buy two items at the hardware store (without raising any eyebrows or alerts), and kill a large number of people with them - they would fit into a small backpack.

There has been on in Germany. And in Japan, there's been a school massacre with a kitchen knife.

Columbine proved that they didn't just have access to illegal guns. They built homemade bombs. Out of readily available materials.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry could also make noxious or poisonous gases that would be effective in a confined space like a building. You could buy two items at the hardware store (without raising any eyebrows or alerts), and kill a large number of people with them - they would fit into a small backpack.

I guess the solution is to give guns to class teachers so they can defend themselves and their classes. Does the existence of effective weapons other than firearms justify to you the availability of firearms?

Yes, they were quick to pounce on that, weren't they? And hammer it at every opportunity. It's always good to point the finger at a minority whenever possible. A few words about their tragic plight, vague promises and eventually everything's ignored after a few months as the news stations focus on the next BIG thing.

Agreed, our local media source has told folks that if it didn't envolve blood that they didn't care. I wonder whom is going to be scapegoated for this one?

And when something goes wrong in any enclosed area, do people calmly walked out, waiting for people in front of them to move first? No, all hell breaks loose and people get trampled.

Human behaviour when we are under threat is unpredictable at best. Some people may stay cool in a crisis but others panic and act before thinking.

Which is why schools have fire drills. In such situations people fall back on what is familiar. If theya re trained for such situations then it is that training that is relied upon. Paniked trampling only occurs when there is a lack of training.

I guess the solution is to give guns to class teachers so they can defend themselves and their classes. Does the existence of effective weapons other than firearms justify to you the availability of firearms?

No, the fact that firearms are cool justifies the availability of firearms. Guns aren't just useful, they're also fun.

What kind of society needs security guards at schools?
Here (England) we have caretakers, teachers and dinner ladies. And dinner ladies are ferocious, they could take on any one.

From my experience with public schools the security guards serve two main purposes. The first is to break up fistfights amongst students. That's why they're so often in the cafeteria during lunch hours. The second relates to cars and the like. The security guards troll around outside of the school keeping an eye on the cars so people don't try to steal/vandalize them. Beyond that they also direct traffic sometimes.

I guess the solution is to give guns to class teachers so they can defend themselves and their classes. Does the existence of effective weapons other than firearms justify to you the availability of firearms?

I thought it was salient that the school security guard in this incident was unarmed. One wonders why a security guard wouldn't even have a can of pepper spray. A totally unarmed security guard is essentially a target in a uniform.

Giving a teacher a gun (and even a class in how to use it) doesn't make the teacher a useful defender anymore than giving you a piano and a couple of lessons makes you a pianist. Statistics show that police are far more likely to miss with each shot than the typical felon (in the US) and even more likely to miss than the typical concealed carry holder (civilian). Civilians who hold concealed carry permits in the US have been shown to have been involved in three times as many legitimate shootings as the police - and are far less likely to have been involved in an illegitimate use of force - while being far more likely to be strenuously investigated. You could chalk all of that up to "being willing". Someone who views carrying and using a firearm as an onus, or as some sort of "work" is less likely to practice or show any interest in the safe and judicious use of a firearm.

When you're facing someone who has a firearm, any weapon short of that is less effective. If I'm more than about 10 feet away, you're going to have a hard time hitting me with pepper spray, no matter what the advertisement told you.

The school had metal detectors. It had constrained access to the building. The guard was completely unarmed. If there had been two guards, and both of them had been armed, I think the story would have come out differently.

In any case, even if there are no guns, the Japan event shows that a crazy person can do a Dunblaine or Columbine without a gun if his victims are unarmed. Homemade bombs and poison gas are even more readily available and easy to fabricate.

Are there no guidance counselors at schools in the U.S.? Someone students can talk to about the problems they have? It may not be official therapy, but it can and does help. It can let them know that there not alone and give them the confidence to know that things can improve.

There was a school shooting in Canada a few years ago, and I know that someone at the school I was at three years ago had a kill list, but school officials found out and got the person help. I don't know what could drive a person to mass killings, but I can think of certain things to help. Just as an individual try to be nice and not exclude people. at my school there are also teachers who almost always have there classrooms open so that students have someplace to go where they know they won't be bullyed. Sometimes its the little things that help.

The country is clearly in need of some socialism, for example to enable young people to get help - for free.
Like in some more civilised countries...

I'm also very puzzled as to where all this aggression comes from. Europe has more than 400 million people, so where are all the reports on public shootouts? I can't imagine it to be much more difficult to get a gun in Europe (just think of all the old communist states), than in the US.

The country is clearly in need of some socialism,

Socialization, not socialism.

Studies show that children who are raised with guns and properly socialized with them are less likely to be involved in firearm violence than children who were not raised around guns at all.

People in other countries still do these things, but at lower rates, largely because of their socialization.

There's a fully automatic rifle and ammunition in most Swiss homes. Yet you don't hear about Swiss workers "going postal" or Swiss children gunning down their classmates. It's not their health care system, either. It's how they are raised - they have a perception of what a gun is to be used for, even in extremis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4370617.stm

sigh. Let's just wait for the political grandstanding. No doubt Bush will try to ban all heavy metal music (they'll find a connection there somewhere), ignoring every other factor (like gun control or possibly the plight of the American Indians, as it was on a reservation).
I was going to call this thread "Here's what happens when you DON'T ban guns" but that seemed pretty disrespectful for the ppl who have gone through this terrible incident.
Of course on the otherside of the political spectrum everyone will blame guns or video game violence (seems that efforts to "stop game violence" are pretty bipartisian) all while they play a pathetic game of shifting blame from where it should lay, you know, with the god damn gunman.
But hey, personal responsibility seems to be a myth these days.

Of course on the otherside of the political spectrum everyone will blame guns or video game violence (seems that efforts to "stop game violence" are pretty bipartisian) all while they play a pathetic game of shifting blame from where it should lay, you know, with the god damn gunman.
But hey, personal responsibility seems to be a myth these days.

The root of a lot of the problems in the US lays with the idea that personal responsibility is politically incorrect. Better to blame an inanimate object than any person.

I should point out that if other students and teachers had been armed the death toll would have been much lower.
Great answer......give EVERYONE a gun. As soon as they are old enough to walk, strap a six shooter on them.....YEEHAW!! :eek:

The root of a lot of the problems in the US lays with the idea that personal responsibility is politically incorrect. Better to blame an inanimate object than any person.
Unfortunately, the "inanimate object" comes loaded with deadly projectiles. :eek:

Unfortunately, the "inanimate object" comes loaded with deadly projectiles. :eek:
That the person put in there.

Did you know that the kid did the shooting with a police officers gun?

Socialization, not socialism.

Studies show that children who are raised with guns and properly socialized with them are less likely to be involved in firearm violence than children who were not raised around guns at all.

People in other countries still do these things, but at lower rates, largely because of their socialization.

There's a fully automatic rifle and ammunition in most Swiss homes. Yet you don't hear about Swiss workers "going postal" or Swiss children gunning down their classmates. It's not their health care system, either. It's how they are raised - they have a perception of what a gun is to be used for, even in extremis.
And for rebuttal: (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm)

Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.

Fact: Switzerland also has strict gun control laws.

Summary

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.

Illegally acquired gun used here folks. The only way to have stopped this one would be to have barred the police from having guns as well as the people.

lol, I love it when someone trys to boost a nation on a fourm or chat then only to have it shot down by a true fact. I tip my hat to you CanuckHeaven :p

I was a school pariah, the geek, the loser. I remember vividly when Columbine happened. I took the punishments given to me in stride, just holding out, wanting to fight back but not knowing how. When Columbine happened, and afterwards, the people who pushed me around would do their usual thing to make themselves feel so big, and then say 'What are you going to do? Shoot up the school?'

Why did I tell you this story? To prove my point that we learned nothing, and will not learn from these incident. When will they finally learn? You push a kid over the edge, and he'll... well...

Look, we're all to blame for it. Who among you has not had a laugh at someone else's expense back in school? How many of you can name a geek or pariah in your school that you constantly make fun of? How many of you are this kind of person?

Are you people not seeing a pattern here?!?!

Columbine, Taber, now this! And just this week, a group of kids in St. John's (Newfoundland, Canada) were just busted plotting to do the same thing to their school!

The kids that are doing this (the majority of them, anyways) are kids that have been pushed around one too many times, and they found a way to push back so hard that everyone feels it.

And the ironic thing is, even after all those years, it's still going on, and it will keep happening in the future. Why? Because we had years to figure out how to prevent this, and you know what we learned?

Bullies are not the misunderstood people we thought, but actually people who think too highly of themselves, and push others around for their own amusement and self fulfillment. And they keep doing the things they do because everyone else around them does nothing, which only justifies their actions more. The people that watch get some perverse voyeurism out of it to! And that in turn brews resentment towards the bullied... and well... you see it here.

That's it. We haven't actually learned how to stop the bullying that causes these kinds of attacks. Just who causes it... which is every alpha male and female that tries to assert their authority or get their jollies off by hurting another, every person that stands by, every person that snickers behind someone's back, every person who uttered the word loser (among other things) to another person for shallow, stupid reasons.

We can say 'oh what a travesty it is', cry for the dead, send our best wishes to the dead's loved ones, but I find that such self righteous drivel doesn't actually help in the long run. I don't feel sad. I feel angry! I'm angry because we had all this time to figure out a solution and still we have nothing!

What we really need to do is examine ourselves and accept our part in the blame. Maybe then we'll actually do something that will make a lick of difference!

yay distraught teens with access to guns!

I'd like to make a point here: I'm not against owning guns but I don't think anyone but the guy with the permit to own the guns should have access to them. If that means voice-coding or finger-print ID scan, so be it.

BTW, Canada has already tried gun registry. They meant well, since it was meant to limit guns and prevent gun related crime, but it was just a big waste of taxpayer's money. In the end, you can just get a gun illegally, or use another item to kill with. Hell, the gun that was used to kill 4 Mounties at a grow op a few weeks ago was illegal in Canada (it was either a .308 submachine gun, or a .308 sniper rifle, made by Heckler & Koch, the newspaper reports were a bit conflicted). How is a gun registry supposed to help prevent that?

[Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.

When was the last time you heard about a school shooting in Switzerland?

Or a Swiss employee driving to work and killing dozens of his co-workers?

Hm?

Although 7 out of 10 children believe that a school shooting was likely in their school, they were actually more likely to die playing football than by a firearm in their school. 18 high school students died playing football in 1999, while only half as many students were killed in a homicide by firearm in the 1999-2000 school year. Nary a mention is given to the students who were killed while playing football, while the media chose to sensationalize the violent crimes that take place in schools-- although they are rare, and totally preventable.

Yes, just look at all the school masacres that have happened in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

And it's comforting to know such a thing has never happened in Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C9cole_Polytechnique_Massacre)

Yes, the USA has them. More than it should. And it needs to be looked at. But it's hardly an exclusively American thing.

Didn't take them long to pin down that he was into videogames and stuff, either... *Sighs*

Rates are per 100,000 population and come from the United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook published in 1998.

We recall that America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?

Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.

There may be a lesson here. Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise. In fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including Washington, D.C. with its "crack" wars, are already as high as that of Colombia. This is not an encouraging thought.

The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22 percent. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

From 1991 to 1997 the U.S. homicide rate fell 30 percent. Liberals credit a strong economy and low unemployment; conservatives point to three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty. We are uncertain which factors to credit. The portion of the population made up by males aged 15 to 24, the most crime-prone group, fell by 5 percent, so this can account for only a fraction of the 30 percent fall in homicide. In any case, the fall began in 1992, while the Brady Act (waiting period for handgun buyers) and the assault-weapons ban went into effect in 1994. Clearly, these laws cannot be credited for a fall in homicide that had begun two years earlier. Violence is often like an Rorschach test --- what we read into it depends more on us than on it. This subjectivity must be avoided.

Without the deceptive comfort of myths, we are forced to confront reality. Liberals must face the fact that despite billions spent on social programs, changes to make the justice system more "fair," and new gun-control laws, the homicide rate doubled since the 1960s. Conservatives must face the fact that despite continuing family breakup, fatherless boys, decaying schools, and loss of respect for human life, the homicide rate fell by one-third in the 1990s. Advocates of drug legalization must face the fact that this fall in homicide occurred as the "war" on drugs continued. Opponents of violent films and video games must face the fact that as these increased, homicide as well as school violence fell, despite highly publicized shootings. Conversely, liberals must admit that the recent fall in homicide was associated with three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty, while conservatives must admit that the fall in homicide was associated with low unemployment and a strong economy.

In short, we all must admit that we have much to learn about the causes of violence. This requires more effort and intellectual honesty than looking to the government to pass yet another law. America is hardly the most violent nation, and our homicide rate has fallen recently, but we are more violent than we used to be --- and than we should be.

Are there no guidance counselors at schools in the U.S.? Someone students can talk to about the problems they have? It may not be official therapy, but it can and does help. It can let them know that there not alone and give them the confidence to know that things can improve.

There was a school shooting in Canada a few years ago, and I know that someone at the school I was at three years ago had a kill list, but school officials found out and got the person help. I don't know what could drive a person to mass killings, but I can think of certain things to help. Just as an individual try to be nice and not exclude people. at my school there are also teachers who almost always have there classrooms open so that students have someplace to go where they know they won't be bullyed. Sometimes its the little things that help.

There are guidence counselors in US schools. However, in most states these guidance counselors are "mandatory reporters". This means that if you tell a school guidance counselor about violent fantasys you will go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200

And it's comforting to know such a thing has never happened in Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C9cole_Polytechnique_Massacre)



December 6 is now observed as a memorial day, especially in Montreal; in 1991 Parliament officially designated December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. A white ribbon is the symbol of December 6 memorials.


The reason thing like this can happen is firearms. Can you immagine if someone tried to attack a large group of people with a knife? or pretty much anything else? At worst he might kill one or two people. The rest could subdue him with their bare hands.

The reason thing like this can happen is firearms. Can you immagine if someone tried to attack a large group of people with a knife? or pretty much anything else? At worst he might kill one or two people. The rest could subdue him with their bare hands.

I guess you're so wrong.

In Japan, seven students were killed in a knife attack - an ordinary kitchen knife.

No one wrestled him to the ground.

You've never been in a fight with a knife-wielding person, have you?

I guess you're so wrong.

In Japan, seven students were killed in a knife attack - an ordinary kitchen knife.

No one wrestled him to the ground.

You've never been in a fight with a knife-wielding person, have you?
Was going to say the same thing
Someone with a knife backed into a corner is nothing to take lightly

(and yes I have been in a fight with a knife-wielding person)

Was going to say the same thing
Someone with a knife backed into a corner is nothing to take lightly

(and yes I have been in a fight with a knife-wielding person)

Every time I've done it, I got cut. At the very least, on the hands and forearms.

It's not as easy or safe as it looks.

Every time I've done it, I got cut. At the very least, on the hands and forearms.

It's not as easy or safe as it looks.
The one and only time was when three guys were trying to drag a friend into an ally ...

I made the mistake of focusing on the one in front of me with a knife ... the one behind me slid one through my ribs ;) stupid deflated lung

at least they came to the hospital with me ;)

Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.



An interesting collection of countries there. You are dealing purely in per capita homicides yes? I think it might be interesting to further redefine these statistics to take into account GNP of the countries as well, as the more money a country has, the better it should be at keeping public order. Is it then fair to say that America stands heads and shoulders above the rest of the world?

An interesting collection of countries there. You are dealing purely in per capita homicides yes? I think it might be interesting to further redefine these statistics to take into account GNP of the countries as well, as the more money a country has, the better it should be at keeping public order. Is it then fair to say that America stands heads and shoulders above the rest of the world?
And how is there a direct correlation between money and safety?

An interesting collection of countries there. You are dealing purely in per capita homicides yes? I think it might be interesting to further redefine these statistics to take into account GNP of the countries as well, as the more money a country has, the better it should be at keeping public order. Is it then fair to say that America stands heads and shoulders above the rest of the world?

Order is more a matter of socialization. I believe that countries with a homogeneous population, a relatively affluent nation, and a socialization pattern for criminals that de-emphasizes violence is far more important.

The UK, for example, seems to have had a long standing policy of having lightly armed or unarmed policemen. Criminals have come to expect this - and there's a socialization pattern that involves less violence, especially when it comes to arrests.

In the 1970s, we positively militarized most US police forces. Between that and the War on Drugs, and the stiffer sentences for even fairly innocuous crimes, the criminal has come to expect and escalate violence.

We have those incredible car chases every day in most of our major cities. They don't happen that much in Europe.

Even our socialization pattern for guns is warped. Studies have shown that children who are raised with guns in a "normal" setting (such as on a farm, where the guns are used for hunting), they are less likely to use a firearm to commit a crime later in life. Less likely than a child who never grew up with one. Who got their socialization pattern from the movies. Less likely than a child who grew up on the streets, and got their socialization pattern from a gang.

Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. as well, and so if you are correlating money and safety, your argument fails

And how is there a direct correlation between money and safety?

Money and public order.

Money and public order.
Ok how is there a corrolation between money and public order?

Order is more a matter of socialization. I believe that countries with a homogeneous population, a relatively affluent nation, and a socialization pattern for criminals that de-emphasizes violence is far more important.

The UK, for example, seems to have had a long standing policy of having lightly armed or unarmed policemen. Criminals have come to expect this - and there's a socialization pattern that involves less violence, especially when it comes to arrests.

In the 1970s, we positively militarized most US police forces. Between that and the War on Drugs, and the stiffer sentences for even fairly innocuous crimes, the criminal has come to expect and escalate violence.

We have those incredible car chases every day in most of our major cities. They don't happen that much in Europe.

Even our socialization pattern for guns is warped. Studies have shown that children who are raised with guns in a "normal" setting (such as on a farm, where the guns are used for hunting), they are less likely to use a firearm to commit a crime later in life. Less likely than a child who never grew up with one. Who got their socialization pattern from the movies. Less likely than a child who grew up on the streets, and got their socialization pattern from a gang.

Well there you are then. An answer for why America is head and shoulders above the rest of the world in violent crime. Since socialisation is a matter of choice for a nation, it cannot be an excuse for something, but an example of something being done wrong.

Money and public order.

There is no correlation there.

Well there you are then. An answer for why America is head and shoulders above the rest of the world in violent crime. Since socialisation is a matter of choice for a nation, it cannot be an excuse for something, but an example of something being done wrong.
Or Environment

Well there you are then. An answer for why America is head and shoulders above the rest of the world in violent crime. Since socialisation is a matter of choice for a nation, it cannot be an excuse for something, but an example of something being done wrong.

That's why I teach over 100 kids a month what the proper use of a gun is.

I teach children how to shoot. I've done this for years. None of them have ever used a gun in the commission of a crime.

I know kids in my neighborhood whose parents forbade them from attending my classes. Some of them are already in juvenile detention for committing crimes of violence. With guns.

See?

Ok how is there a corrolation between money and public order?

Cut all funding to the police force and tell me there is no effect. The more money a country has, the more can be devoted to policing and education to discourage violence.

Cut all funding to the police force and tell me there is no effect. The more money a country has, the more can be devoted to policing and education to discourage violence.
To a point ... so far unable to teach humans not to be humans ... only so much money you can throw at a problem before an atitude change is more needed then more money

Cut all funding to the police force and tell me there is no effect. The more money a country has, the more can be devoted to policing and education to discourage violence.

Cuba is literally a police state - and yet somehow, guns are still in private hands, and murders are still taking place. Now go back and look at the stats for Cuba.

That's why I teach over 100 kids a month what the proper use of a gun is.

I teach children how to shoot. I've done this for years. None of them have ever used a gun in the commission of a crime.

I know kids in my neighborhood whose parents forbade them from attending my classes. Some of them are already in juvenile detention for committing crimes of violence. With guns.

See?

See what? I never made any point against gun education. I was just saying that you cannot claim that America is doing a far worse job in preventing violence and homicide than other countries given the reasources available.

Cuba is literally a police state - and yet somehow, guns are still in private hands, and murders are still taking place. Now go back and look at the stats for Cuba.

'And education to discourage violence'

To a point ... so far unable to teach humans not to be humans ... only so much money you can throw at a problem before an atitude change is more needed then more money

American attitudes are not so different from the rest of the world's are they?

'And education to discourage violence'

I'm saying that the education doesn't have to be public education.

Education, especially concerning the proper social use of firearms, used to be the purview of parents.

In fact, just being a regular member of society used to be something taught by parents. Unfortunately, a portion of our government believes that this would be better taught by the public education apparatus, and allow parents to forget their role.

I'd say that's the biggest change in the past 50 years. Telling parents that the school will handle it all - when in fact not only did the school not handle it, but kids aren't listening to what the school has to say - no matter how much money they throw at it.

Rather like spending money on trying to teach abstinence. It doesn't work because they don't listen to anonymous authority figures. And since the parents have been officially relieved of their jobs, they're no help.

I'm saying that the education doesn't have to be public education.

Education, especially concerning the proper social use of firearms, used to be the purview of parents.

In fact, just being a regular member of society used to be something taught by parents. Unfortunately, a portion of our government believes that this would be better taught by the public education apparatus, and allow parents to forget their role.

I'd say that's the biggest change in the past 50 years. Telling parents that the school will handle it all - when in fact not only did the school not handle it, but kids aren't listening to what the school has to say - no matter how much money they throw at it.

Rather like spending money on trying to teach abstinence. It doesn't work because they don't listen to anonymous authority figures. And since the parents have been officially relieved of their jobs, they're no help.

Maybe the best thing would be for the government to run programs to educate the parents to educate their children.

Why is the Constitution relevant? Hmm.. can you think of any part of it that has to do with firearms, and whether the citizenry are allowed to keep them? What I'm saying is that the issue can't be mangled by U.S. politicians calling for X or Y interpretation of the Constitution, since it doesn't apply to sovereign nations not a part of the U.S. The place of today's attack is one of only 2 fully sovereign Indian Nations in the country.

I'm not arguing in favor of gun control, but if I were, I couldn't use today's shooting as a case in my favor to challenge the system at large - that's the significance of the Tribe's Constitutional status.

I know it's not terribly important, but the shooting didn't occur on U.S. territory, technically.

http://www.redlakenation.org/

"Technically", you don't know what you are talking about.

Tribes are not "fully sovereign" any more that States are. States have sovereignty, but are subject to federal supremacy.

Tribes are subordinate and dependent nations. (I am not advocating that language -- it is simply the state of the law.) They are fully subject to federal supremacy.

There are many tribes as sovereign as the Red Lake Nation.

If you want to continue babbling about tribal sovereignty, at least educate yourself. Here (http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html) and ]here ([URL=http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/indian.html) are simple overviews of Indian Law.

(I happen to be a strong advocate of tribal sovereignty. Your views I won't assume to know, but here you are just trying to make a political point and you are in error.)

It is not, technically, true that tribes are not subject to the Constitution. What you mean is that tribes are not limited by the Bill of Rights, which is true. (Just as states were not limited by the Bill of Rights prior to the 14th Amendment. (Don't argue that. Google "Bill of Rights" and "incorporation.")) Congress, however, has imposed many of the limitations of the Bill of Rights on tribes through the Indian Civil Rights Act. (Congress can do that because tribes are not 100% sovereign.)

As to your point about the Constitution, it is silly. The 2nd Amendment does not apply to tribes. So? Technically, the state of the law -- whether you agree with it or not -- is that the 2nd Amendment: (1) does not apply to the states (see "incorporation") and (2) does not protect an individual right to possess or use firearms. Don't go off about your disagreement with that last sentence. It is the state of the caselaw. I'm not arguing here that the caselaw is right -- that is different subject. It is, however, an accurate summary of the caselaw. Here is an article from the NRA (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23) that disagrees wth the caselaw re incorporation, but agrees with my summary.

Anyway, the fact that you do not have a 2nd Amendment argument against gun control on an Indian Reservation cannot possibly detract from any argument in favor of gun control based on yesterday's argument. To the extent it is even relevant, the lack of a 2nd Amendment argument could only strengthen the argument for gun control within a Reservation. Try thinking it through before you try to make this point again.

EDIT: Note, I am not arguing here in favor of gun control. I am merely trying to correct your misunderstandings and/or misstatements.

Also, Indian Law is complicated. I don't mean to disparage you by stating you are in error about it. I apologize if I have done so. I merely wish to drive home the point that you are, in fact, in error (which is understandable.)

It is not, technically, true that tribes are not subject to the Constitution. What you mean is that tribes are not limited by the Bill of Rights, which is true. (Just as states were not limited by the Bill of Rights prior to the 14th Amendment. (Don't argue that. Google "Bill of Rights" and "incorporation.")) Congress, however, has imposed many of the limitations of the Bill of Rights on tribes through the Indian Civil Rights Act. (Congress can do that because tribes are not 100% sovereign.)


1. Your 2nd Amendment rights can be enhanced by a State Constitution - as in the case of Vermont's, where they explicitly state:

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

2. It's not really possible to make a 2nd Amendment (pro or con) argument in this case. The kid got the guns from his grandfather - a policeman on the reservation. The kid took the guns and the squad car. No restriction on the ownership of firearms by civilians would have made any difference here, as policemen are always armed.

1. Your 2nd Amendment rights can be enhanced by a State Constitution - as in the case of Vermont's, where they explicitly state:

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

2. It's not really possible to make a 2nd Amendment (pro or con) argument in this case. The kid got the guns from his grandfather - a policeman on the reservation. The kid took the guns and the squad car. No restriction on the ownership of firearms by civilians would have made any difference here, as policemen are always armed.

I've carefully tried to avoid arguing for gun control here.

I didn't raise the 2nd Amendment. Pepe Dominguez has -- in this backwards way of saying you can't argue in favor of gun control based on what occurred here because the Constitution does not apply to the Reservation. I am merely trying to explain of few of the many ways that argument is nonsense.

You are right that many states have independent provisions re a right to bear arms. Not relevant to what I was talking about.

Similarly, you second point is not relevant to what I was saying. I'm not arguing for gun control. I'm not argue the 2nd Amendment does or does not apply. I'm merely trying to explain to Pepe Dominguez that the fact this occurred on a Reservation is irrelevant to the gun control argument.

Sorry if this is too testy, WL. I respect your views on this. I'm just frustrated beaten my head against the misunderstanding about Indian Law.

That's why I teach over 100 kids a month what the proper use of a gun is.

I teach children how to shoot. I've done this for years. None of them have ever used a gun in the commission of a crime.

I know kids in my neighborhood whose parents forbade them from attending my classes. Some of them are already in juvenile detention for committing crimes of violence. With guns.

See?
You know, here in HK most criminals are lactose intolerant. Therefore, using your logic (as explained above) drinking milk and eating cheese makes people law-abiding citizens.

When was the last time you heard about a school shooting in Switzerland?

Or a Swiss employee driving to work and killing dozens of his co-workers?

Hm?

Although 7 out of 10 children believe that a school shooting was likely in their school, they were actually more likely to die playing football than by a firearm in their school. 18 high school students died playing football in 1999, while only half as many students were killed in a homicide by firearm in the 1999-2000 school year. Nary a mention is given to the students who were killed while playing football, while the media chose to sensationalize the violent crimes that take place in schools-- although they are rare, and totally preventable.
That is incredible. Try to minimize the facts that students are being gunned down at US schools, by suggesting more die annually playing football. BTW, that was 1999, what are the stats for kids getting mowed down at schools on a year by year basis?

The problem that I have with your analogy, is that it is an extreme rarity in Canada.

Another problem I have is that you might have missed that 31 students/teachers were gunned down between October 1, 1997 and April 20, 1999, which would average out to over 20 per year. Guess they should have played football instead?

Yes, just look at all the school masacres that have happened in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

And it's comforting to know such a thing has never happened in Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C9cole_Polytechnique_Massacre)

Yes, the USA has them. More than it should. And it needs to be looked at. But it's hardly an exclusively American thing.

Didn't take them long to pin down that he was into videogames and stuff, either... *Sighs*
Do whatever you can to rationalize and justify the "almighty" gun?

The fact is that it happens far more in the US than any other "civilized" country.

The gun crowd loves to trot out this saying:

"Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People"

Yet you want to suggest that "Guns Don't Kill People, People (who play video games) Kill People".........

I hereby sentence you to 5 non stop viewings of Bowling for Columbine.

I'm from Denver. I only live in minnesota.

Funny... this is exactly what I tell people, only replace Minnesota with Texas.

Rates are per 100,000 population and come from the United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook published in 1998.

We recall that America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?

Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.
You don’t mind comparing the US to what is essentially a group of 3rd world countries?


There may be a lesson here. Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise. In fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including Washington, D.C. with its "crack" wars, are already as high as that of Colombia. This is not an encouraging thought.
Perhaps the US needs to “crack” down on gun ownership better than it has been?

The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22 percent.
From the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, the 1985 figure was actually 8.0, and the 1980 rate was 10.2, which meant a drop of 27%, but then the rate climbed to another peak of 9.8% in 1991, a gain of 22%. Then in 1992, it was 9.3, and in 1993, it went up again to 9.5.

However, one might notice that in 1994, after the Brady Bill was passed and the passage of the assault weapon ban, the murder rate started to drop significantly. 1994, it was down to 9.0, in 1995, it was down to 8.2 (the lowest rate since 1985). It gets better, in 1996, the rate dropped to 7.4 (the lowest rate since 1969).

It's not only about guns, it's about people. 9 out of 10 murders (reported) committed by youngsters under 18 take place in USA. I think we can say that "reported" excludes countries like China, Uganda and Brasil but not e.g. EU countries. What makes American teenagers so violent? Why European teens don't kill each other? (they do but it's rare)

Quite many say that strict gun laws won't prevent anything. That people can always buy illegal guns. How exactly? I have absolutely no idea where I could buy an illegal gun. Do you all have criminals as close friends?

39 students killed in schools 2003-2004
30 students killed in school 2004-2005 this far.

And it's comforting to know such a thing has never happened in Canada. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C9cole_Polytechnique_Massacre)


Don't forget Taber, Alberta.

It's not only about guns, it's about people. 9 out of 10 murders (reported) committed by youngsters under 18 take place in USA. I think we can say that "reported" excludes countries like China, Uganda and Brasil but not e.g. EU countries. What makes American teenagers so violent? Why European teens don't kill each other? (they do but it's rare)

Quite many say that strict gun laws won't prevent anything. That people can always buy illegal guns. How exactly? I have absolutely no idea where I could buy an illegal gun. Do you all have criminals as close friends?

Ahem. Want to know where this kid got his guns? His grandfather was a tribal policeman. Who had several guns. The kid got the guns and killed the grandparents first, then drove the police car to school and started killing.

Tell me, how much would a gun law would prevent policemen from having guns that the government issues to them? Eh?

Ahem. Want to know where this kid got his guns? His grandfather was a tribal policeman. Who had several guns. The kid got the guns and killed the grandparents first, then drove the police car to school and started killing.

Tell me, how much would a gun law would prevent policemen from having guns that the government issues to them? Eh?
...it's about people... ...buy illegal guns...
The question is not where they get their guns but why they use them.

..to be continued...

...it's about people... ...buy illegal guns...
The question is not where they get their guns but why they use them.

..to be continued...

Studies show that Americans use guns 2.5 million times a year - to stop 2.5 million violent crimes in mid-commission. The study by Kleck is unassailable - the anti-gun peer reviewers could not find a single flaw in the study - which is corroborated by other studies.

It would appear that the lawful use of firearms greatly exceeds the unlawful use of firearms.

Kids who go on rampages in schools (internationally) have used knives when they couldn't get guns. Killing many people before they stop - the incident in Japan was committed by someone using a kitchen knife - and he was not subdued by anyone. He just stopped. I would bet that in most instances where the attacker is armed with virtually any lethal weapon, and the victims are unarmed, you aren't going to get anything but a lot of death.

As to why? Because some people are just bad. He was obviously making a choice. Don't blame it on goth, or black trenchcoats, or music, or video games, or guns, or a violent culture - because if that were true, then everyone with a gun would be doing it.

It's a personal choice. A moral choice. He obviously made the wrong choice.

WL: In this case the kid stole his granpa's legal gun. No, strict gun laws would not have prevented it. I never said anything like that.

Do you believe that people would just buy guns illegally if the laws would be stricter? (because that's what I was talking about)

WL: In this case the kid stole his granpa's legal gun. No, strict gun laws would not have prevented it. I never said anything like that.

Do you believe that people would just buy guns illegally if the laws would be stricter? (because that's what I was talking about)

Here in the US, most crime guns are stolen - not purchased. Department of Justice studies of felons who used guns found that most felons (more than 80 percent) obtained theirs by theft or buying a smuggled firearm - not by walking into a gun store and purchasing it.

If you consider that it's a crime to possess a gun in most major cities in America, and yet most violent crime and murders take place in those cities, then the guns they use must by definition be illegal.

Just because you have a law doesn't mean it will do anything. There's already a law against murder. Adding a law to make gun possession illegal doesn't add much to the punishment for capital murder.

They can only execute you once.

Studies show that Americans use guns 2.5 million times a year - to stop 2.5 million violent crimes in mid-commission. The study by Kleck is unassailable - the anti-gun peer reviewers could not find a single flaw in the study - which is corroborated by other studies.
I believe you. I'm not trying to find flaws in that. USA also uses 3 billion (annually) to cure people who've been shot.


Kids who go on rampages in schools (internationally) have used knives when they couldn't get guns. Killing many people before they stop - the incident in Japan was committed by someone using a kitchen knife - and he was not subdued by anyone. He just stopped. I would bet that in most instances where the attacker is armed with virtually any lethal weapon, and the victims are unarmed, you aren't going to get anything but a lot of death.

Happened once. School shootings in USA? Quite more often. Anyway, I've already said that this kind of accidents happen everywhere but why almost all of them happen in USA?

As to why? Because some people are just bad. He was obviously making a choice. Don't blame it on goth, or black trenchcoats, or music, or video games, or guns, or a violent culture - because if that were true, then everyone with a gun would be doing it.
I've never blamed music, video games or anything like that in cases like this. Ok, some people are just bad. Why there are so much more bad Americans than e.g. Europeans?
Not trying to offend. But it's a fact that American teens are a lot more murderous than teens in any other western country. I try to understand why and I don't believe that gun laws is the answer. But what is? bad people sounds a bit simplistic answer.

Here in the US, most crime guns are stolen - not purchased. Department of Justice studies of felons who used guns found that most felons (more than 80 percent) obtained theirs by theft or buying a smuggled firearm - not by walking into a gun store and purchasing it.

snip
You have a point. I don't think possession should be illegal but maybe there should be stricter laws about who can get one where guns should be stored. As you know, many other countries have more guns per population but gun related crimes are not as big problem in other countries. So it's not about possessing. Maybe it's about that in other countries people (where they have a lot of guns) buy guns for hunting, not for protecting property. They don't keep them loaded in their livingroom.

I already believe I know the answer.

Fifty years ago, we had just as many guns in just as many homes. More guns in the cities.

As for general violence levels, the war on drugs has raised the murder rate just as Prohibition did in the 1920s.

For teen violence levels, the difference comes from "socialization". When you are young, you learn the habits that you will use for the rest of your life.

Fifty years ago, it was customary for parents to teach children proper behavior - response to conflict, for example. And to teach them what was an appropriate response. They also taught them what guns were for - for hunting, for competition, for the fun of plinking at tin cans - not for killing your fellow students.

Today, most parents leave most moral teaching and socialization to the government - to the schools and the social workers. Which means that most students don't get any "teaching" at all. They watch movies that show them that the way to deal with a social problem is to pull out a gun and open fire. It's not the movie's fault - but the kid is receiving no other message that they would likely believe. Parents are far more influential than the TV, movies, the school, or a social worker.

Studies show that if you raise a child with guns, and teach them appropriate uses for them, they are less likely than any other child to become involved in violence. Children who are raised in the presence of guns, but not taught, are very likely to be violent and use them later. And children who are never around guns, and never taught about them, are also likely to use them later in life.

The parents of the students at Columbine seemed to be missing their boys' lives - they were unaware of their angst, and instead of raising them, they fell back on psychologists and anti-depressants. The boy in this incident lost his parents, and was being raised by his grandparents - who probably didn't think much of his problems - would you leave your guns laying around if you really knew your son had a problem?

If I had to point a finger, I'd say that the boy made bad moral choices. But he never had a chance, really, since he never received the moral guidance that comes from good parenting. Schools, psychologists, and social workers can never, ever make the difference that a good parent can make.

That could be it. We have similar problems in Finland and I guess so does every other country. Maybe the situation is just worse in a country where society's structure is weaker. (=in a sense that government doesn't regulate and control everything)
but And children who are never around guns, and never taught about them, are also likely to use them later in life.
likely? Are you serious? or did you mean more likely than those who've been raised to handle a gun?

That could be it. We have similar problems in Finland and I guess so does every other country. Maybe the situation is just worse in a country where society's structure is weaker. (=in a sense that government doesn't regulate and control everything)
but
likely? Are you serious? or did you mean more likely than those who've been raised to handle a gun?

More likely than those raised to handle a gun in a proper social setting. Less likely than those raised with guns in an improper social setting.

More likely than those raised to handle a gun in a proper social setting. Less likely than those raised with guns in an improper social setting.
ok, I though so...
I'll go to see a violent war movie in 45 mins. Let's hope I won't start killing people afterwards (don't own a gun, my car might be too small to use as a weapon, hmm, I can always try...) :D

ok, I though so...
I'll go to see a violent war movie in 45 mins. Let's hope I won't start killing people afterwards (don't own a gun, my car might be too small to use as a weapon, hmm, I can always try...) :D

The point is that you learned not to do such things early on - from someone, probably your parents. You learned good social habits.

The movie won't make a difference now. Neither will video games.

The movie won't make a difference now. Neither will video games.
I try my best.

To be honest. I'm full of that shit about violent movies and video games. They have an impact on certain type of people but it's nothing like they (against violent movies) insist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4370617.stm

sigh. Let's just wait for the political grandstanding. No doubt Bush will try to ban all heavy metal music (they'll find a connection there somewhere), ignoring every other factor (like gun control or possibly the plight of the American Indians, as it was on a reservation).
I was going to call this thread "Here's what happens when you DON'T ban guns" but that seemed pretty disrespectful for the ppl who have gone through this terrible incident.
I agree with you. Bush will try to get rid of what isn't the "ideal" and blame it on that. Whilst he is sending many men and women to death in Iraq. For a war that is over, lots have been killed. Blame bush not rock music.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4370617.stm

sigh. Let's just wait for the political grandstanding. No doubt Bush will try to ban all heavy metal music (they'll find a connection there somewhere), ignoring every other factor (like gun control or possibly the plight of the American Indians, as it was on a reservation).
I was going to call this thread "Here's what happens when you DON'T ban guns" but that seemed pretty disrespectful for the ppl who have gone through this terrible incident.
Ban guns? Are you an idiot, cause you apparently missed the part where it said his grandfather(the owner of the guns) was a cop. So you are saying to take guns from cops too? Great idea dumbass.
Well anyway this is just another attemp to bash Bush over something he had nothing to do with.

Ban guns? Are you an idiot, cause you apparently missed the part where it said his grandfather(the owner of the guns) was a cop. So you are saying to take guns from cops too? Great idea dumbass.
Well anyway this is just another attemp to bash Bush over something he had nothing to do with.
No he was retired. Plus if he was a cop why does he need a gun at home?
I'm not saying banning guns is the answer as it clearly is not. But I am also saying that allowing every tom Dick and Harry to own one is also not sensible.
The problem is with the society and its' attitudes, not with an inanimate object.

No he was retired. Plus if he was a cop why does he need a gun at home?
I'm not saying banning guns is the answer as it clearly is not. But I am also saying that allowing every tom Dick and Harry to own one is also not sensible.
The problem is with the society and its' attitudes, not with an inanimate object.

I have owned guns for decades, and never committed a violent crime of any sort. I have, on several occasions, stopped violent crime using a gun. And I am not a policeman.

Ban guns? Are you an idiot, cause you apparently missed the part where it said his grandfather(the owner of the guns) was a cop. So you are saying to take guns from cops too? Great idea dumbass.
Well anyway this is just another attemp to bash Bush over something he had nothing to do with.
Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you go out and find out exactly how many Student shootings there's been in every other Western country that bans guns and then compare it to how many occur in the States. While you're at it, check to see how many of those countries have to have armed guards and security checkpoints and metal detectors at their schools because they're so afraid of more shootings.
Once you've done that, then dwell on who's the Dumbass.

No he was retired. Plus if he was a cop why does he need a gun at home?
I'm not saying banning guns is the answer as it clearly is not. But I am also saying that allowing every tom Dick and Harry to own one is also not sensible.
The problem is with the society and its' attitudes, not with an inanimate object.
The story said he drove his grandpa's cop car. Why would he have a cop car if he was retired?

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you go out and find out exactly how many Student shootings there's been in every other Western country that bans guns and then compare it to how many occur in the States. While you're at it, check to see how many of those countries have to have armed guards and security checkpoints and metal detectors at their schools because they're so afraid of more shootings.
Once you've done that, then dwell on who's the Dumbass.

Why don't we compare how many guns were owned by Americans fifty years ago, and compare that to how many guns we own now - and compare the number of school shootings.

You may discover that it's not the guns, so you may not want to do that. It would destroy your vision of the world.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you go out and find out exactly how many Student shootings there's been in every other Western country that bans guns and then compare it to how many occur in the States. While you're at it, check to see how many of those countries have to have armed guards and security checkpoints and metal detectors at their schools because they're so afraid of more shootings.
Once you've done that, then dwell on who's the Dumbass.
And why don't you go and check every country who has banned their cops from using guns? Might be at that for a while, but you may find some 3rd world county that can't even afford guns in the first place. Im sure their crime rate is amazing. I haven't seen a single metal detector, security checkpoint, or armed guard ever at my school. The closest thing to that would be the sensors at the library doors to make sure you checked out the book.

While you're at it, check to see how many of those countries have to have armed guards and security checkpoints and metal detectors at their schools because they're so afraid of more shootings.
Once you've done that, then dwell on who's the Dumbass.

I could also add that here in my county (a suburb outside of Washington, D.C.) there are NO metal detectors in the schools, and NO security guards. Here in my state we are all ALLOWED to carry handguns openly, and can easily get a concealed weapons permit.

We have 60 percent less violent crime, and 60 percent less murder than our neighbor to the north, where they HAVE metal detectors in their schools, and NO handguns are permitted to be carried at all by civilians.

For two locations with otherwise identical demographics in all economic, social, population, and ethnic respects.

I could also add that here in my county (a suburb outside of Washington, D.C.) there are NO metal detectors in the schools, and NO security guards. Here in my state we are all ALLOWED to carry handguns openly, and can easily get a concealed weapons permit.

We have 60 percent less violent crime, and 60 percent less murder than our neighbor to the north, where they HAVE metal detectors in their schools, and NO handguns are permitted to be carried at all by civilians.

For two locations with otherwise identical demographics in all economic, social, population, and ethnic respects.
Where I live we have had one school shooting ever, and that was by a demented adult. We cannot carry guns and only specialist police carry weapons. Guns are niether the problem or the solution, it is the people that have them.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you go out and find out exactly how many Student shootings there's been in every other Western country that bans guns and then compare it to how many occur in the States. While you're at it, check to see how many of those countries have to have armed guards and security checkpoints and metal detectors at their schools because they're so afraid of more shootings.
Once you've done that, then dwell on who's the Dumbass.
I think you should read this, if i have time I'll pull some more stuff up.
http://www.crpa.org/nemerov0305.html
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/2002/pd050902d.html

Very well written Greater Yubari. I too was the target of bullying. This happened for six years until I moved from that school system. I can sympathise with the kids at Columbine to a point as I have had similar thoughts though middle school. I would've like to have seen em squirm or have a fate worce than death. Those thoughts died out when I left that area. It is now seven years later, I called a friend from down there and was told that all the folks who gave me so much grief are mostly druggies. Now, I own rifles and I have never thought of extiguishing life with one. I think one positive thing that came from it is that I can put up with alot of shit without even loosing my cool.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4370617.stm

sigh. Let's just wait for the political grandstanding. No doubt Bush will try to ban all heavy metal music (they'll find a connection there somewhere), ignoring every other factor (like gun control or possibly the plight of the American Indians, as it was on a reservation).
I was going to call this thread "Here's what happens when you DON'T ban guns" but that seemed pretty disrespectful for the ppl who have gone through this terrible incident.

Not surprising that it happened in Shitessota. This whole state is full of punks and hoodlums.

If you're the target of bullying and ridicule, there are a lot of perfectly LEGAL things you can do to make life a living hell for the people who bully and tease you.

I think that apart from the obvious initial confusion, that possibly 6 were killed at the school and 2 others found murdered in a home later (his grandparents apparently). So that's why we have '6 Dead in school shooting' and '8 dead in student rampage'. I don't know about the 10. Maybe someone got confused hearing the numbers, or perhaps they've found other bodies.

Apparently two wounded students died later in hospital. That may explain the 10.

Yes, they were quick to pounce on that, weren't they? And hammer it at every opportunity. It's always good to point the finger at a minority whenever possible. A few words about their tragic plight, vague promises and eventually everything's ignored after a few months as the news stations focus on the next BIG thing.
I'm not trying to say all native american's are crazy murderers, but they do have a high percentage of alcoholics and stuff like this happens. Alot of the reservations are run down and the people just get drunk.

If you're the target of bullying and ridicule, there are a lot of perfectly LEGAL things you can do to make life a living hell for the people who bully and tease you.
I'm not supporting the actions of school shooters, but would you care to point some out? Reporting bullying is the only legal thing I can think of, and that almost never works.

I'm not supporting the actions of school shooters, but would you care to point some out? Reporting bullying is the only legal thing I can think of, and that almost never works.
In the late 1970s, I was teased mercilessly by several "jocks" or athletes. One in particular beat me up several times (no action was taken despite the visible injuries, reports, and witnesses). So, I waited until he graduated.

He was quite the homophobe (you can guess what he called me). He was also a bodybuilding freak. He got a scholarship to go to a military college, and I called his mother (who had never heard of me, since he never mentioned me at home). I said I was a long time friend, and would she give me his address at school? She gave it to me, and I subscribed to several gay men's magazines in his name, but I intentionally put the wrong room number on the address.

One of his dorm buddies got the magazines with his name on them - and they threw him out for being gay.

Once home, his parents began to question his interest in bodybuilding, and his interest in bodybuilding magazines. After about a month of this, they disowned him.

Use your head. It's not necessary to directly confront anyone to ruin their life.

In the late 1970s, I was teased mercilessly by several "jocks" or athletes. One in particular beat me up several times (no action was taken despite the visible injuries, reports, and witnesses). So, I waited until he graduated.

He was quite the homophobe (you can guess what he called me). He was also a bodybuilding freak. He got a scholarship to go to a military college, and I called his mother (who had never heard of me, since he never mentioned me at home). I said I was a long time friend, and would she give me his address at school? She gave it to me, and I subscribed to several gay men's magazines in his name, but I intentionally put the wrong room number on the address.

One of his dorm buddies got the magazines with his name on them - and they threw him out for being gay.

Once home, his parents began to question his interest in bodybuilding, and his interest in bodybuilding magazines. After about a month of this, they disowned him.

Use your head. It's not necessary to directly confront anyone to ruin their life.
Funny. I always thought doing what you did constituted fraud.

Funny. I always thought doing what you did constituted fraud.

If I had been caught at the time, the police would have said it was a prank.

There's a difference between what the law says on the books, what the police will enforce, and what lawyers are actually able to achieve in court.

I'm kinda torn.. I consider myself a hardline liberal.. I believe in the complete decriminalisation of drugs, legalisation of abortion and euthanasia etc.. but when it comes to gun control i'm a bit divided.. I'm not from the US, and in my country, we have strict gun control laws, rifles and shotguns are legal for recreational use primarily.. handguns and automatic/modified weapons are highly illegal.. We don't have a problem with guns, gun related crime is very low.. The police dont carry guns.
I think it should be pointed out that the kid's grandfather was a cop, and that he stole the weapons.. Nevertheless, AMerica clearly has a problem with guns and perhaps certain civil liberties need to be forfeited in the interest of people's safety..

I'm kinda torn.. I consider myself a hardline liberal.. I believe in the complete decriminalisation of drugs, legalisation of abortion and euthanasia etc.. but when it comes to gun control i'm a bit divided.. I'm not from the US, and in my country, we have strict gun control laws, rifles and shotguns are legal for recreational use primarily.. handguns and automatic/modified weapons are highly illegal.. We don't have a problem with guns, gun related crime is very low.. The police dont carry guns.
I think it should be pointed out that the kid's grandfather was a cop, and that he stole the weapons.. Nevertheless, AMerica clearly has a problem with guns and perhaps certain civil liberties need to be forfeited in the interest of people's safety..

What works in your country doesn't work in the US. I live in an area awash with legal guns, and the legal concealed carry of guns, and I enjoy 60 percent less murder and 60 percent less violent crime than the neighboring state where guns are heavily restricted.

It's more a matter of socialization. Kids aren't taught by parents today how to behave morally and ethically. This is left to the school, which does nothing in that regard - and if they do, the kids ignore the school. These school killings are a tiny minority of all murder in the US - most of which is associated with drugs and the war on drugs. If drugs were suddenly legal here, the majority of murder and violent crime would stop - right then - just as it did at the end of Prohibition.

Funny. I always thought doing what you did constituted fraud.


Where is the fraud? There is nothing illegal about subscribing to magazines in another person's name. It all depends on how payment was made. If WL paid with a money order or vash then its fine. If he used the guys credit card then its credit card theft and mail fraud.

Where is the fraud? There is nothing illegal about subscribing to magazines in another person's name. It all depends on how payment was made. If WL paid with a money order or vash then its fine. If he used the guys credit card then its credit card theft and mail fraud.
Paid cash for a gift subscription.

Additionally, it's not like I ever said he was gay, either.

It was their own warped minds - and his - that made everyone think he was.

It was their own system that came down on his head. Not mine.

Additionally, it's not like I ever said he was gay, either.

It was their own warped minds - and his - that made everyone think he was.

It was their own system that came down on his head. Not mine.
You manipulated the system though, which is in my eyes just as bad. Oh so he punched you a couple times in high school. Boo frickety hoo, I am sure you weren't an angel either. He may have made your life hell for 4 years, but you have ruined his life. And, might I add, what you did was during adulthood. What he did was during adolescence, and out of pure maturity. I really don't know if this is real, if it isn't then I suppose its kinda funny. If it is real, you should confess what you did. He may be garbage, but you are below garbage. You are the scum of the earth that we should all spit on.