Why are school shootings a sole unique American problem?

[Tuur]

Do you think you are capable of discussing possible gun regulation except a generalized gun grab? Note – discussing, not yet implementing? Do you think anything from the list above would be an improvement compared to the current situation?

First, are you a US citizen, Canadian, or other?
Second, why the discussion of Canada and not previous US efforts?

 

[Tuur]

We can uphold our 2nd amendment while reducing unnecessary gun deaths, but only if we are willing to try.

The problem is the phrase "shall not be infringed." Very honestly, if the 2nd Amendment is problematic, you can seek to repeal it.

 

[Tuur]

Removing guns from anyone, as I keep saying, is not on the table as a matter of discussion. We are not formulating policy here. But all you are doing is proving my point that there are those who haven't got the slightest interest in even discussing possible solutions.

Question: Are you a US citizen, Canadian, or other?

 

[Bradskii]

Question: Are you a US citizen, Canadian, or other?

I'm Australian, which has nothing to do with the fact that the problem being discussed is one ocurring in the US, appears to be one mainly affecting the US and which those living in the US should be trying to solve. This is not an American forum and topics are proposed and discussed by a variety of people from all over the world. This topic has already been discussed by Americans, Australians, Germans and those from the UK. Each of those citizens from those countries, and others, are free to propose, suggest, discuss and argue about any topic under the sun concerning any part of the world, whilst obeying forum rules. And you yourself have been recently discussing matters that affect the UK.

I sincerely hope this isn't another nonsensical attempt to not discuss this matter. It's becoming farcical.

 

[driewerf]

First, are you a US citizen, Canadian, or other?

Other. But that doesn't matter.

Second, why the discussion of Canada and not previous US efforts?

That was Bradskii's suggestion, not mine. I merely pointed out that you misrepresented Bradskii's position as if he wanted the Canadian legislation implemented, while he just considered as a starting point for the discussion.
I suggested a list of possible measures that can be discussed. For you convenience, here it is gain:
The requirement to follow a safety training, without an examination
• The requirement to follow a safety training, with an examination
• The requirement to follow a safety training, with an examination, a periodical requalification and the possibility of the retraction of the permit in case of fail
• The requirement to follow a safety training, with an examination and a periodical requalification and the possibility of gun confiscation in case of fail
• Gun storage regulation
• Gun storage regulation with specifications (like limited access for minors, etc)
• Gun storage regulation with mandatory periodical check by law enforcement services
• Limiting or prohibiting the access to high capacity weaponry
• Limiting or prohibiting high speed weaponry
• Limiting or prohibiting the access to guns for convicted people
• Limiting or prohibiting the access to guns for people with mental issues

Now, this is the third time that you reacted to a post in which your opinion was asked, and that your reaction was a mere deflection toward irrelevant issues. Would you give us your opinion about different propositions on that list?

 

[Tuur]

Other. But hat doesn't matter.

It matters very much. I don't know what country you're from, and that's fine. I also don't care about how you do things there. Your country; your business. Most likely having never been there, much less lived there, I wouldn't really know your country to begin with. Oh, I'd know of it, but I wouldn't know it.

I'm quite sure your interest is from the goodness of your heart. There are those who aren't US citizens who are genuinely concerned about our welfare, and wonder why we have free speech and ownership of weapons. Yet it strikes me of a parable that's likely older than Aesop, which goes something like this:

A mastiff came upon a wolf who's ribs were showing and was moved to pity. "Why don't you come live with me? It's a good life. All I have to do it to look after things and let my humans know if there's trouble, and they feed me the choicest morsels from their table and give me a warm place to sleep."

The wolf looked at the mastiff, saw how well fed he was, and agreed. But on their way to his humans' house, he happened to notice something.

"What's that?" said the wolf.

"What's what?" said the mastiff.

"That thing on your neck."

"What thing?'

''I don't know. It's like a strap but goes completely around it."

'Oh," said the mastiff. "That's my collar. That's where my humans chain me."

The wolf stared at this a moment, then turned and ran back to the woods.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

A good read. From what I gather (reading), it doesn't matter what regulations are placed on guns, Americans will buy them anyway. Also, if the idea is even implied that US citizens will not have access, they will start buying more out of fear of scarcity.

A gun to an american appears to be some sort of psychological need.

 

[Tuur]

I'm Australian,

Interesting. You're an Australian and yet concerned about how the US does things within it's own country. It doesn't bother me that your country doesn't have a Bill of Rights, with such freedoms as you have implied by your constitution and not explicitly protected. I think the Australian argument goes that to define a thing is to limit it. To me that also implies that those rights exist at the pleasure of the state. But it's your country, not mine.

 

[Tuur]

A gun to an american appears to be some sort of psychological need.

I would like to have firearm with a sling to carry in case of bear and wild hogs when I'm seeing about things at the home place. That's a specific need.

Now, on the subject of "psychological need," I have the following anecdote from WWII: There was rationing in the US during the war, and a local country store had a surplus of an item. The owner posted a sign that said "Limit one to a customer," and was soon sold out. The fear was that this, too, would be rationed or unavailable.

 

[driewerf]

It matters very much. I don't know what country you're from, and that's fine. I also don't care about how you do things there. Your country; your business. Most likely having never been there, much less lived there, I wouldn't really know your country to begin with. Oh, I'd know of it, but I wouldn't know it.

I'm quite sure your interest is from the goodness of your heart. There are those who aren't US citizens who are genuinely concerned about our welfare, and wonder why we have free speech and ownership of weapons. Yet it strikes me of a parable that's likely older than Aesop, which goes something like this:

A mastiff came upon a wolf who's ribs were showing and was moved to pity. "Why don't you come live with me? It's a good life. All I have to do it to look after things and let my humans know if there's trouble, and they feed me the choicest morsels from their table and give me a warm place to sleep."

The wolf looked at the mastiff, saw how well fed he was, and agreed. But on their way to his humans' house, he happened to notice something.

"What's that?" said the wolf.

"What's what?" said the mastiff.

"That thing on your neck."

"What thing?'

''I don't know. It's like a strap but goes completely around it."

'Oh," said the mastiff. "That's my collar. That's where my humans chain me."

The wolf stared at this a moment, then turned and ran back to the woods.

It is interesting to see you write a long text for the third time now, just for evading the core of the post you're replying to.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It matters very much. I don't know what country you're from, and that's fine. I also don't care about how you do things there. Your country; your business. Most likely having never been there, much less lived there, I wouldn't really know your country to begin with. Oh, I'd know of it, but I wouldn't know it.

I'm quite sure your interest is from the goodness of your heart. There are those who aren't US citizens who are genuinely concerned about our welfare, and wonder why we have free speech and ownership of weapons.

Ok. I AM a US citizen, and I'd like to discuss reasonable gun regulation (i.e. confiscation isn't on the table). @driewerf's list of potential restrictions is a decent starting point. I've also seen the Czech Republic's gun laws proposed as a model (they have a similar constitutional provision for gun ownership). I'll have to read up on Canada's laws.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Culture may have something to do with it. But, you say that guns are not common in Germany, but guns are very popular in Canada. In both USA and Canada, the culture is very similar. In both USA and Canada, guns are used for hunting. In both USA and Canada you need a hunting license. Yet, Canada has only 2 school shootings while USA has 288.

Again, I must point out that schools are gun-free zones. If all school staff were locked and loaded, with an armored security guard, a metal detector, and a double door that everyone must pass through, in or out, would schools be safer? I believe they would be.

The OP is asking a valid question and so am I. Since guns are allowed in most countries, why does USA have such a high school shooting rate? We have refuted the "GUNS!!!" reason enough already.

I think in order to have an answer it’s important to know whose doing the shooting & why. It seems that most of these incidents are the result of retaliation from altercations between students. I’m willing to bet that the majority of these cases are caused by parents not properly securing their firearms. Kid gets in a fight, maybe he loses and is completely ridiculed and comes back with dad’s pistol the next morning to get payback. This seems to be the biggest reason for shootings on school campuses.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No you didn't. Please explain in detail your refutation of each of my initial 4 points.

Thanks for clarifying that you meant if guns did not exist. This is different than if they were illegal. Of course, if guns did not exist, there would be no shootings. This isn't arguable OB - it's a self-evident fact.

But here is another fact: Guns exist. You seem to think that by making guns illegal, or harder to get, that will reduce school shootings. Let me explain again why this isn't logical.

Schools are gun free zones. The only one with a gun is the murderer. Staff are unable to defend themselves or students. When seconds count, police are just minutes away. See my above post about more secure schools with metal detectors, double doors, armored guards, and such.


Making something illegal only removes it from law abiding citizens. If guns were illegal, the only civilians with guns would be criminals. Illegal drugs are illegal. Does this mean we have virtually prevented ALL drug abuse? Of course not. Drug abuse continues even with legal drugs. However, citizens cannot fight drugs with more drugs. School staff and security CAN shoot a psycho armed with a fully automatic weapon.

Can you imagine how hard it must’ve been for Adam & Eve to get rid of all the rocks in their neighborhood?

 

[BNR32FAN]

View attachment 323958

Now take into consideration the population of these countries as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In my view, Americans seem to prioritize a right to own assault weapons over the lives of our children. This has become obvious. When folks won't even consider gun regulations to minimize gun violence killing our neighbors, the priority is glaringly apparent to me. Political gaslighting for votes doesn't help this tragic problem either.

Gun regulations have been in place for over 60 years now. The whole reason I bought a gun to begin with was to protect my children not so that I could go out and shoot children.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I agree with that. I know plenty of people with guns and they do not go shooting up schools. Here are a few of my suggestions:

1. Gun safety taught in schools. This should be a requirement for all students. Guns are not toys. They are dangerous weapons.
2. More secure schools. Double doors that require being "buzzed in" to enter. Nobody can just walk into a school.
3. Metal detectors at the entrance. No coins, scissors, or belt buckles without staff approval. Other businesses have metal detectors, why not schools?
4. Allow, not force, staff to conceal carry. For every mass shooting, there are many more instances of criminals being neutralized by good samaritans.
5. Have an armored security guard on duty in larger or high risk schools. Terrorists may use bulletproof armor, so security needs to be properly equipped.
6. Proper investigation of potential threats. Shooters post threats on social media. These threats are often ignored. Don't ignore them. If a mentally unstable person tweets that they will kill someone, that is probable cause.
7. Most important, teach students Godly behaviour. Instead, they are being taught atheism, hedonism, fornication, sodomy, racism, and hatred of Christianity.

Personally I don’t think it’s too much to ask to have at least one police officer on each campus during school hours. I mean it’s literally what we pay them for.

 

[rambot]

The problem is the phrase "shall not be infringed." Very honestly, if the 2nd Amendment is problematic, you can seek to repeal it.

It's very, VERY easy to argue the entire 2nd ammendment has been completely twisted and perverted in meaning and intent.

The only reason it would NEED to be repealed is because of how rulings in courts have led it there. Death by 1000 papercuts....or maybe in this case, 1000 bbs

 

[Desk trauma]

Personally I don’t think it’s too much to ask to have at least one police officer on each campus during school hours. I mean it’s literally what we pay them for.

376 of them took hours to work up the nerve to engage, what's one going to do?

 

[BNR32FAN]

376 of them took hours to work up the nerve to engage, what's one going to do?

I would imagine that they were most likely ordered not to enter by a superior. Let’s not forget how many times a single police officer has saved lives.

 

[Desk trauma]

I would imagine that they were most likely ordered not to enter by a superior. Let’s not forget how many times a single police officer has saved lives.

Who can forget the heroics of Scot Peterson at Parkland.