School Shootings

Hey Old Dude- This thread has taken a drift. Sorry for my participation in that. I like your intention, and I am quite sure the governor of Texas doesn't need me to defend the first amendment. And, being the governor of Texas, he probably doesn't need Daisy or Kook rooting for a version of government consistent with a particular brand of Christianity, as I am quite sure much if his constituency contacts his office every day on that front.

I am tapping out of that debate, and suggest that others do the same. Really, no need to refute them- any critical thinker reading them already gets it. Those who don't, won't. Daisy and Kook, feel free free to take a free shot here- no argument from me.

I truly have no suggestions I believe will help.

I support common sense gun laws. But, I doubt there will be meaningful change. I think huge amounts of debate and political capitol might be expended, and there will be compromises like limiting scary looking guns, but allowing identical hunting guns. Or, limiting sales of new, high capacity magazines, which I believe will just increase the value of the millions of high capacity magazines in this country already. When you look at all the proposals on the table now, or at least the ones that have any chance of passing, and apply them retroactively to past shootings, I don't think many lives would have been saved.

I support increased mental health services for many reasons. But, I am skeptical that will cause a meaningful decrease in school shootings. Sure, maybe if we doubled early intervention, we might stop a shooting or two 10 years from now.

I have a pessimistic belief that this will not only continue, but increase in frequency.

I thought you were sincere until you got to the naming names part. Please do not make excuses for me/my opinion to the Governor or anyone else. I have not said anything I am ashamed of on this thread. I stand behind my beliefs and have only said what I feel will help decrease school shootings. I am sorry that some of you don't like it and think I should be quiet but this is an open discussion. You dont have to agree with my beliefs/views but I agree that we should all try to remain civil.

Nurse Blaq, I am only stating my opinion on societal issues that I believe affect the problem being discussed in this thread, please do not put words in my mouth.

Osceteacher, not exactly sure what you point is, but again, please not put words in my mouth or assume to think you know what I watch on TV.

Muno :pls see article below, I think it is interesting...maybe you will too..

hhern, not sure what you mean by Religious right, but most religious people I know donate a lot of money and time to charities and care very much about other people

Did America Have a Christian Founding? | The Heritage Foundation

The article repeats what I stated in my previous post, that the founding fathers were predominately deist and generally ranged from fairly opposed to today's organized Christian denominations to extremely opposed, what we generally call agnostic today. So it depends on what you mean by suggesting we need more God in our society, maybe you could clarify what you're referring to.

I believe that osceteacher is being sarcastic-not literal at all. Their comments read quite differently once you factor in sarcasm. We really need some sort of punctuation to indicate sarcasm, particularly in social media.

I agree with those that have commented that more often than not, the shooters are looking to be famous, and glorified. The more we cover the shooters on media, the more shooters will continue to seek glorification and becoming famous. Shooters don't need to be covered in all details by the media. They should be referred to as something along the lines of "the anonymous shooter", no glory, attention and making a terrible legacy. I understand that most people want to know who and why but if we pay for that information by inadvertently encouraging another shooter, we lose.

I believe that osceteacher is being sarcastic-not literal at all. Their comments read quite differently once you factor in sarcasm. We really need some sort of punctuation to indicate sarcasm, particularly in social media.

I agree with those that have commented that more often than not, the shooters are looking to be famous, and glorified. The more we cover the shooters on media, the more shooters will continue to seek glorification and becoming famous. Shooters don't need to be covered in all details by the media. They should be referred to as something along the lines of "the anonymous shooter", no glory, attention and making a terrible legacy. I understand that most people want to know who and why but if we pay for that information by inadvertently encouraging another shooter, we lose.

Depends on which post, the bad people one was more hyperbole than sarcasm, I don't really think they're bad people just incredibly unhelpful, the other one was 100% what I wanted to say, Millenials and this generation are the most peaceful and tolerant generation we've ever seen, unfortunately social media, a creation of the previous generation, has created a new wave of ways to send abuse and promote intolerance with very little to discourage it happening. We like to blame the young, ridicule them for being selfie obsessed shallow social media junkies when in reality its pre millenials that created this and are happily doing exactly the same (myself included, although I don't do selfies). Millenials are not the problem.

When you factor in the truth and people still try to pull the whole god would fix things if we let him in it makes me pretty hot under the collar because it detracts from any reasonable conversation and boils down to the childish desire to have some anomalous being take the fall/credit. If there's anything that shows this mindset its 'god isn't allowed in schools' therefore he allows kids to be shot, its incredibly tragic when you think about it.

Your point about fame is 100% correct, these guys should be scrubbed from history as best as possible, Wikipedia articles should all be changed so the shooter is known as small member boy with gun...(That last part was definitely sarcasm btw :) )

There has been so many shootings in the USA, and every time one happens people say we have to change things. But nothing ever does. And a thread on a nursing website isn't going to help.

The us government has to step up and put policy's in place. No one needs a gun. People wanting a gun shouldn't be prioritise over people's life's.

As some one not from the USA it seems rediculous how unsafe it is there. I love travelling and want to see the world, but there's no way I would go to America in its current state.

Hmmmm...no individual needs a gun? When I call for help because a homeless guy says "how about I break in your house @##!$" and it takes the Sheriff 7 hours to get to my house I feel like I need a gun. When 17 teens try to stop my car as I drive down a residential street with my 5 year old in the car, I feel like I need a gun, when I work in mental health and prison and need to provide for the safety of my family again....I feel like having a gun makes us safer. Am I scared? Nope because I have a Mastiff and a shotgun. I learned gun safety in the service and am a responsible person but we are letting all of our criminals out of jail due to overcrowding and with the abysmal response time and really lackadaisical attitude of the law enforcement in my area (lady assaulted getting gas blocks from me yesterday, man shot to death while working at the grocery store a few weeks ago just blocks away, jewelry store said guy was smashing cabinets and locked inside by security system took cops 1. hours to arrive) I feel better protecting my family myself...you want to make AR15s illegal...fine by me...want to make it harder to get a gun....no problem but try and take it all together, you better step up your empowerment of police and their accountability for my safety.

Am I scared?

It absolutely looks like you're scared from this side of the pond. That doesn't have to be a negative thing mind, I mean, I sometimes put my keys in my hand if I'm being approached by certain teenagers in my area just in case I need to defend myself, that's survival.

I stand with newgradenurse that your everyday civilians shouldn't need guns because of fear, but if you live in a place where you aren't able to leave and you are getting random hobos threaten you, maybe having a gun might add a layer of safety for you. Personally, I'd be more worried about my child getting hold of it, people may think its safe in a locked area but we always found ways to get in to my parents locked alcohol cupboard, lock it up as if we'd never been in there.

People from the UK will never understand that level of fear, which is why we have such a different view on guns.

It absolutely looks like you're scared from this side of the pond. QUOTE]

osceteacher, I see your point and perceptions differ but to clarify I have a realistic view of my risk profile and because of that I feel prepared not fearful. We recently moved to a different area of California (although I am still driving back and forth working at my old hospital over the summer and we are renovating our old home ourselves to prepare to rent it out) because the homeless population is out of control in the LA area but thankfully my husband and I both had job opportunities outside of the big cities. My new area is much safer but my work still exposes me to risk....oh and I had a bear in my driveway when I got home at 530 the other morning, so there is that...lol.

Until you can show the people of the United States that they are safe there will be no "ban" on guns. As has been stated many times the culture of America is based around our right to protect ourselves. If you say no the the wall and want to ban guns it will be more than an uphill battle.

You can compare raw statistics from Australia and the United States and see that we do have higher rates. Doing so however is not genuine. You are comparing apples to kiwis. America was colonized and a revolution was fought for our split from Britain. Australia was given it's independence from Britain. Australia was colonized by previously criminal people that were released and given land. There weren't many guns in a colony full of ex cons. America was colonized by free men with the will and need to fight the native populace.

Someone previous stated "it's simple statitics if you took a class". Well statistics isn't simple. There is usually a variable; on many occasions there are multiple variables. I could tell you that the rate of automobile deaths in the United States is double that of Australia per 100000 people. Simple statistic. What are the variables? How many cars? How many miles driven? License requirements? Age?

TL;DR-The United States is a great and unique country. While another country may have a partial answer, using another policy will NOT work in ours. People here have an expectation and belief that they can and will defend themselves.

P.S.- To the nurse that stated they would have killed people if they had a weapon I call BS. I don't remember your name on here, and I'm not going to go back and look, but straight up BS. Anything...ANYTHING could be used as a weapon to kill. Your excuse that it would have had to be a gun is ridiculous. If you were to the point you claim you were, then someone would have been dead. +5 troll points to you.

People from the UK will never understand that level of fear, which is why we have such a different view on guns.

People in the UK should worry about their own cultural problems. If you're not afraid for your children and women then I feel sorry for them.

Just because you want or are willing to carry a gun doesn't mean you live in fear. It's just like putting your stupid keys in your hand because your afraid of some teenagers, only our gun protects us if that teen wanted to take our lives. The tools are different, but the sentiment is the same.

Until you can show the people of the United States that they are safe there will be no "ban" on guns. As has been stated many times the culture of America is based around our right to protect ourselves. If you say no the the wall and want to ban guns it will be more than an uphill battle.

You can compare raw statistics from Australia and the United States and see that we do have higher rates. Doing so however is not genuine. You are comparing apples to kiwis. America was colonized and a revolution was fought for our split from Britain. Australia was given it's independence from Britain. Australia was colonized by previously criminal people that were released and given land. There weren't many guns in a colony full of ex cons. America was colonized by free men with the will and need to fight the native populace.

Someone previous stated "it's simple statitics if you took a class". Well statistics isn't simple. There is usually a variable; on many occasions there are multiple variables. I could tell you that the rate of automobile deaths in the United States is double that of Australia per 100000 people. Simple statistic. What are the variables? How many cars? How many miles driven? License requirements? Age?

TL;DR-The United States is a great and unique country. While another country may have a partial answer, using another policy will NOT work in ours. People here have an expectation and belief that they can and will defend themselves.

P.S.- To the nurse that stated they would have killed people if they had a weapon I call BS. I don't remember your name on here, and I'm not going to go back and look, but straight up BS. Anything...ANYTHING could be used as a weapon to kill. Your excuse that it would have had to be a gun is ridiculous. If you were to the point you claim you were, then someone would have been dead. +5 troll points to you.

The U.S. is about as unique and great as any other country. Just like I'm as unique and special as everyone else. Are Americans in more danger than citizens of any other 1st or 2nd world country?

Seems to me that we are in much more danger of becoming victims of a mass shooting what any other country in the world. I guess we are unique in that respect.

Until you can show the people of the United States that they are safe there will be no "ban" on guns. As has been stated many times the culture of America is based around our right to protect ourselves. If you say no the the wall and want to ban guns it will be more than an uphill battle.

You can compare raw statistics from Australia and the United States and see that we do have higher rates. Doing so however is not genuine. You are comparing apples to kiwis. America was colonized and a revolution was fought for our split from Britain. Australia was given it's independence from Britain. Australia was colonized by previously criminal people that were released and given land. There weren't many guns in a colony full of ex cons. America was colonized by free men with the will and need to fight the native populace.

Someone previous stated "it's simple statitics if you took a class". Well statistics isn't simple. There is usually a variable; on many occasions there are multiple variables. I could tell you that the rate of automobile deaths in the United States is double that of Australia per 100000 people. Simple statistic. What are the variables? How many cars? How many miles driven? License requirements? Age?

TL;DR-The United States is a great and unique country. While another country may have a partial answer, using another policy will NOT work in ours. People here have an expectation and belief that they can and will defend themselves.

P.S.- To the nurse that stated they would have killed people if they had a weapon I call BS. I don't remember your name on here, and I'm not going to go back and look, but straight up BS. Anything...ANYTHING could be used as a weapon to kill. Your excuse that it would have had to be a gun is ridiculous. If you were to the point you claim you were, then someone would have been dead. +5 troll points to you.

I don't know that anyone really disagrees that numbers need to be put in context by controlling for variables, you don't seem to actually get to how exactly why Australia doesn't show a lower rate of gun crime that we could learn from, specifically how taking steps to keep guns from criminals doesn't actually result in fewer criminals using guns.

I'm not sure how you feel it's relevant, but the US was also British penal colony, convicts sent to Australia were issued guns for hunting and to "fight the native populace". How exactly does that mean that more effective methods of keeping guns from criminals wouldn't work here?