• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Does The U.S. Have More School Shootings Than Everywhere Else?

scatt said:
No, guns are not designed with the specific intent to kill people. Plus, telling me that the overwhelming majority of gun owners not killing humans means they are misusing their firearms is silly.



Except the ones that do carry on loaded firearms. They are usually air marshals though.
Click to expand...

1. Where did I say that the "overwhelming majority of gun owners...are misusing their firearms"? That's you making up crap again. Guy, how about trying something completely different and READ what other people say before you go accusing them of saying things they didn't say?

2. This may come as a complete shock to you, but we're NOT discussing air marshals - we're discussing the GENERAL PUBLIC.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
1. Where did I say that the "overwhelming majority of gun owners...are misusing their firearms"?

2. This may come as a complete shock to you, but we're NOT discussing air marshals - we're discussing the GENERAL PUBLIC.
Click to expand...

They would need to be if guns were designed with the specific intent to kill people. The buyers of guns are just not aware of this alleged purpose?

The general public can and do carry their guns onto the plane, in a bag that they have quick access to, just not usually on non-charted flights.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I never said that you owning a weapon causes schools to have lockdown drills - that's you twisting words...again.

I SAID that it's your opposition to sensible gun control that's enabling gun ownership by people who really shouldn't have guns...and that this was the reason our little children have to go through lockdown drills.

And apparently you don't understand teenagers half as well as you think you do, because having armed guards at schools doesn't do a bit of good. There was an armed guard at Columbine. Look how that turned out. There was a armed police force at Virginia Tech. Look how that turned out. And THEN there was Fort Hood - most guards actually on watch had guns there, too. And THEN there was the shootings at the Washington Navy Yard - the guards were the first victims!

There's a LOT of schools where an armed guard is on duty. Can you name a massacre that was stopped by that armed guard?

The point is, guy, having guards on duty has NOT been shown to be effective at preventing massacres. What HAS been shown to be effective in minimizing (though not totally preventing) massacres is EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL MEASURES...as all other first-world democracies know from first-hand experience.
Click to expand...

that's beyond moronic. if a capital murder charge and consequences didn't deter Lanza what would have?
 
MACS-24 said:
And they are all "Gun Free Zones" How's that working out?

Sensible :2sick1: gun control? Gun free zones work so well- let's expand the areas and call it "sensible gun safety" :doh
Click to expand...

People who are not sensible concerning gun rights are in capable of proffering sensible gun laws

Glen's concept is a complete gun ban because that is the only way to have stopped Lanza from killing his mother and stealing her guns. Only if she had been banned from owning those guns would he not been able to obtain HER guns. Of course, someone willing to die and kill his own mother to get guns is probably not going to be deterred any more than drug addicts have been deterred by felony penalties for buying even a 5 dollar amount of crack
 
Manc Skipper said:
If your schools don't have to waste so much money on defending themselves from attack, then they free it up to spend it on education. There's a novel idea for you.
Click to expand...

that is like saying if people didn't get sick they wouldn't have to waste money on medical insurance
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Actually, the 2A protects our right to own "arms", not "firearms"...and at the time it was written, "arms" included not only rifles and pistols, but also cannons and all the black powder one wanted to buy. There was NO limit on how much of what kind of arms one wanted to buy.

So this begs the question: how much is too much? How far is too far? Do we American citizens, then, have a right to buy C4, or RPG's, or machine guns, or .50-cal sniper rifles, or Stinger missiles?

Who makes that call? Who decides what the limit should be, if there is any limit at all? And how can any such limits be maintained with the continuous march of technology?

In other words, those who hold the 2A up as an unquestionable, almost holy document...haven't really thought it all the way through. Come to think of it, that might be a good OP....
Click to expand...

tell me Glen. If CIVILIAN law enforcement AGENCIES use certain weapons for self defense in a CIVILIAN environment that seems to suggest those weapons are SUITABLE for other civilians to merely OWN in the same environment

when you gun banners admit that we can discuss belt fed quad 50 machine guns, mini guns and hand held surface to air missiles or hand held anti tank rocket launchers
 
scatt said:
They would need to be if guns were designed with the specific intent to kill people. The buyers of guns are just not aware of this alleged purpose?

The general public can and do carry their guns onto the plane, in a bag that they have quick access to, just not usually on non-charted flights.
Click to expand...

1. And cars aren't designed for people to get from point a to point b...*sigh* Guy, stop pretending people are stupid enough to buy that line.

2. And we're talking about how more than 99% of air travelers travel - NOT the less than 1% who take chartered flights.

Scatt - I'm done with you. You're not interested in intelligent discourse. Goodbye.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's beyond moronic. if a capital murder charge and consequences didn't deter Lanza what would have?
Click to expand...

It's been shown for many years now that the death penalty does not deter crime. What DOES work is keeping the guns out of the hands of such people to begin with.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And we're talking about how more than 99% of air travelers travel - NOT the less than 1% who take chartered flights.
Click to expand...

I would recommend being as specific as possible or else the holes will show easier.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
1. And cars aren't designed for people to get from point a to point b...*sigh* Guy, stop pretending people are stupid enough to buy that line.

2. And we're talking about how more than 99% of air travelers travel - NOT the less than 1% who take chartered flights.

Scatt - I'm done with you. You're not interested in intelligent discourse. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Irony meter produced a pistol and shot itself after reading that.:mrgreen:

I have fired over a half a million rounds from over 500 different firearms. ONE struck someone intentionally and that was the number of rounds I intended to direct towards another human. of those half million+ rounds several thousand are used to take game animals from thousands of south american dove, hundreds of British Partridge, American pheasants and quail, and dozens of African medium game. over 200,000 have been expended in competition from everything from the local steel and bowling pin leagues to several olympic and world team trials, US nationals, three world championships, etc.

so tell me-what are the purpose and intent of all those firearms I have used?
 
TurtleDude said:
remind us how many gun free zone laws stopped one.
Click to expand...

And I said elsewhere that I've always thought that "gun-free zones" and "drug-free zones" are a joke. But then, "gun-free zone" laws are NOT AFAIK referred to as gun control laws. They're just local municipal measures meant to make the public more aware or feel safer...and I don't think such succeed in either.

But just because that idea doesn't work does NOT mean by any stretch of the imagination that armed guards are a successful method of preventing school shootings.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
It's been shown for many years now that the death penalty does not deter crime. What DOES work is keeping the guns out of the hands of such people to begin with.
Click to expand...

that's like saying medicine doesn't stop stage IV pancreatic cancer from killing people but preventing people from contracting Pancreatic cancer does

only problem-no one knows how to prevent it

short of breaking down doors and confiscating all legally owned firearms, how do you stop someone willing to kill and die from obtaining a firearm
 
TurtleDude said:
tell me Glen. If CIVILIAN law enforcement AGENCIES use certain weapons for self defense in a CIVILIAN environment that seems to suggest those weapons are SUITABLE for other civilians to merely OWN in the same environment
Click to expand...

If it were only that simple a problem. But in fact, if you'll check, it's rather easy to legally buy more powerful weapons than almost anything that civilian law enforcement agencies normally use...which sorta does a number on your supposition.

when you gun banners admit that we can discuss belt fed quad 50 machine guns, mini guns and hand held surface to air missiles or hand held anti tank rocket launchers
Click to expand...

Is that what you want to see? Do you really want people to buy any of those if they want?
 
scatt said:
Does this include weapons?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. If you wish to see how the law operates in this respect, and the sort of thing it strives to prevent, Google the case of Norfolk farmer, Tony Martin.
 
Leo said:
Yes, it does. If you wish to see how the law operates in this respect, and the sort of thing it strives to prevent, Google the case of Norfolk farmer, Tony Martin.
Click to expand...

I find arguments about self-defense that rely on rational thinking during the act of self-defense to be grossly illogical. To regulate that a person must use a specific amount of force, or specific type of force while in an extremely stressful situation, that they did not choose, is laughable. It is something a child would come up with.
 
scatt said:
I find arguments about self-defense that rely on rational thinking during the act of self-defense to be grossly illogical. To regulate that a person must use a specific amount of force, or specific type of force while in an extremely stressful situation, that they did not choose, is laughable. It is something a child would come up with.
Click to expand...

You may very will think so, but it is a principle adhered to by the legal systems of most civilised societies. And most people find the concept of proportional force intelligible.

E.g: If I attack you with an over-ripe banana, most societies would consider your shooting me dead an unreasonable and disproportionate response. :)
 
Leo said:
You may very will think so, but it is a principle adhered to by the legal systems of most civilised societies. And most people find the concept of proportional force intelligible.

E.g: If I attack you with an over-ripe banana, most societies would consider your shooting me dead an unreasonable and disproportionate response. :)
Click to expand...

Your society cannot be civilized if speech is suppressed, or if self-defense is suppressed.

In your example, if the person were to jam it into your eye, your eye sight being unchanged precedes his life if that is your way of getting the attack to stop.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Besides, box cutters are not designed with the specific intent to kill people, just like baseball bats and swimming pools and automobiles are not designed to kill people
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Doesn't matter what something is designed for. If it is used to injure or kill people, in far greater number than firearms does, and it's about 'safety' you would be pushing to ban those items, or register them. Period.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
1. Where did I say that the "overwhelming majority of gun owners...are misusing their firearms"? That's you making up crap again. Guy, how about trying something completely different and READ what other people say before you go accusing them of saying things they didn't say?
Click to expand...

It is the logical conclusion of your thought process. You said guns are designed to do nothing but kill, right? There are hundreds of millions of guns owned by ~ 100 million citizens, right? So if they are designed to kill humans, and we don't have 100's of millions of people getting shot, then clearly they are not being used per their designed intent, right?
 
Arbo said:
It is the logical conclusion of your thought process. You said guns are designed to do nothing but kill, right? There are hundreds of millions of guns owned by ~ 100 million citizens, right? So if they are designed to kill humans, and we don't have 100's of millions of people getting shot, then clearly they are not being used per their designed intent, right?
Click to expand...

Guns are designed to kill people and you know it. That doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is out there eager to use them to kill people - relatively speaking, only very few do...but that 'very few' kill thousands of people every year, and wound tens of thousands of people every year...which results in a great deal of taxpayer dollars to pay for the care of the victims.

Look, guy, mistakes by doctors and hospitals kill a lot more people than guns do...but such cases are the very small minority of cases that doctors and hospitals see.

By the logic of the anti-gun-control crowd, then, regulating doctors and hospitals because of the malpractice of a few is "punishing" the rest of the doctors and hospitals for the sins of those few. And regulations of cars and drivers is the punishment of the many for the sins of the few. And regulations of air travel and air passengers is the punishment of the many for the sins of the few.

If you'll check, very, very few liberals actually want gun bans - they're the ones out on the bleeding edge of the Left, just as the ones who think that the civilian public should be able to buy machine guns, rocket launchers, and Stinger missiles are out on the bleeding edge of the Right. What I want - and what most liberals want - isn't a total ban of firearms. What we want is (1) to keep firearms out of the hands of those who really, truly shouldn't have them, (2) we don't believe that the general public should be able to outgun the police, and (3) restrict assault weapons and extended magazines to the military where they belong - such simply don't belong in the civilian community.

These are common sense measures, and they help make life safer for people in every other first-world democracy (except for Switzerland, but they've got other gun-control measures that today's NRA (though not the NRA of fifteen years ago) would call tyrannical) safer. This is why no other first-world democracy has to have their elementary schools practice lockdown drills in case a guy with a gun is coming to kill them.

Just because the Constitution says something doesn't make that something holy. Remember, there's been several things in the Constitution that were flat wrong - it's not always applicable to the modern day.
 
They want them banned, they are liars. They lie about everything they actually want, as they know they'd have no support if they came right out and said it.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Riiiiiight. Let me guess: "Oh, no, they're not designed to kill, they're only meant to project a bullet out of the barrel at high velocities". Mm-hmm.is.
Click to expand...

I respect you as a poster. Just saying that so you understand I am being cordial :). But your analysis of firearms is incorrect. With all due respect. Perhaps if you edited your view of firearms from "intended to kill or maim" to a view of "it is a tool," you might better understand the anti gun control crowd.

Like all other tools, each gun had a purpose. There is the gun in my pocket...a .380 ACP with 6 rounds in it. Hardly a weapon designed to go into combat with. It is a defensive pistol. Compact, concealable, and light. It will kill a person. Sure. But if my INTENT were to kill...I wouldn't carry this gun.

A shotgun? That is a utility gun. It is the Swiss Army knife of guns. I can hunt birds or larger game. I can make it defensive or offensive. I can make if a target gun too.

I am sure you see my point now? I can have a finely tuned large bore, flat shooting, synthetic stocked, bull barrel .338 lapua...but while it may be supremely powerful and a man killer...my intent is all that matters...especially if I put civilian quality (non rugged) optics on it for long range rifle competitions.

It isn't about the gun...it is about the intent of the user. And if you view a gun as a tool...then you can discuss the intent of the user. A loaded gun will not attack you. A person might, but guns are objects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom