Student kills 5 at school and grandparents

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

I live in a city that has a high crime/murder rate and I have never needed a gun for safety.

And because it hasn't happened to you yet, therefore no one needs a gun for self defense? You seem to be contradicting your own theory - you admit there is a high crime/murder rate. Therefore, many people might benefit by having a gun for self defense.

Quote

Quote

That is true. So by comparing yourself to a regular skydiver that wears a backup chute, you are conforming with the same logic a gun owner uses when he carries a firearm for self defense. Now isn't that interesting...

Let me introduce you to the phrase "apples and oranges."

The logic is the same - being prepared for emergencies. You threw out a common phrase, but did nothing to distinguish why the logic with skydiving is any different, thus you've not disproven the contradiction of your opposite positions.

You should read "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. It would explain the concept of relative levels of risk to you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Once again, not every situation calls for a firearm, but that doesn't mean having one is a bad thing.

Dave, John, myself, Jeffrey, every other serious gun owner on the forum has at one point or another tried to make people understand that having one does not mean you will use it at every opportunity.

Fingers pull triggers. Triggers do not pull the fingers. There is no "blood running in the streets" from concealed carry, and I've read stories of thirteen year olds and eighty year olds defending themselves or family with a firearm when they had to. Don't stereotype gun owners. It isn't any nicer, or any more correct, than doing it to GLBTs, races, religions, or any other 'group.'

Every gun owner I know (who carries) follows a basic set of guidelines for self defense.

(1) avoidance-
Take steps to actively avoid potentially dangerous situations.

(2) de-escalation-
Do everything in your power to calm a situation and avoid violence, including giving up property and pride.

(3) minimal force-
If harsh words work, good. If you can solve the problem with anything other than shooting, great. If you have to go to the gun, shots stop when the threat stops, not the heartbeat.

(4) shoot to stop-
Shoot to stop the attacker, not to kill him. This mean shots at center mass until the attacker stops attacking you.
(no shooting-to-wound, as this is the worst practice possible)

Quote

A weapon does not do any good when it is locked in a safe, but then it becomes easily accessible for a kid who for whatever reason got pissed off at his classmates.

This conundrum is why we anti-gun-control people refuse to accept "Lock-Up-Your-Safety" laws (often called "Safe Storage Laws" to make it seem like "common sense" gun legislation).
What a crock that phrase is.

It's also why we suggest education for children at progressing levels in public schools.
(and very serious discipline for all in any home with guns and children)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

So you've got it all figured out for everyone, and you know what's best for them, their wishes be damned?

How very liberal of you.

Quote

Quote

The logic is the same - being prepared for emergencies. You threw out a common phrase, but did nothing to distinguish why the logic with skydiving is any different, thus you've not disproven the contradiction of your opposite positions.

You should read "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. It would explain the concept of relative levels of risk to you.

What percent of US kitchens go up in flames each year?
How does that compare to the precent of people victimized by criminals?

I could go on, but you get the idea.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Michele 1]

How about that....a child kills a group of people, including his grandparents, and then takes his own life, and the thread is about gun control.

It's not about gun control. It's not about accessible handguns (the guns used were the grandfather's work issued weapons; those, along with the squad car, were stolen after the grandfather and other adult were killed.)

It's about a depressed child who, in recent times, experienced massive loss...his father suicided (depression is very likely a genetic dispositional issue) and his mother was so badly hurt in a car accident (likely after the father suicided) so that she can't take care of him anymore.

So this child loses both his parents - his stability, his guidance, his "heros" as it were. His life is enormously disrupted at a time when he needs stability the most; those gawd awful teenage years. He is taken in by his grandparents, who may not have been able to handle a teenager...

This kid goes on and gets tormented by the teens (as they will; they're teens, after all), and finds an identity in a horrible movement. He kills his grandparents, then the security guard, and then 4 others, including a teacher who had "wronged" him (in his mind, according to one source I've heard...some letter or communication of some sort).

And you all are arguing about gun control.

How about those people who saw this kid, and didn't take the time to actually see how he was? Who didn't know the signs of depression? Who didn't understand that if a child is touched by suicide, they are far more likely to either be excessively violent or suicide themselves by the time they're 25? What about them?

Who was paying attention to this kid?

Let's talk about the issue here. People are dead. It's not about gun control, or if you should/should not use them to protect your happy ass in your own home. It's about dead people, and a child who killed them.

Ciels-
Michele
(nothing in this post should be construed as supportive of this kid's choice.)

edited for typos.

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

So you've got it all figured out for everyone, and you know what's best for them, their wishes be damned?

How very liberal of you.

Quote

Quote

The logic is the same - being prepared for emergencies. You threw out a common phrase, but did nothing to distinguish why the logic with skydiving is any different, thus you've not disproven the contradiction of your opposite positions.

You should read "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. It would explain the concept of relative levels of risk to you.

What percent of US kitchens go up in flames each year?
How does that compare to the precent of people victimized by criminals?

I could go on, but you get the idea.

John Rich was comparing reserve canopies with guns, not kitchen fires. However, since you mention it I know more people who've had to deal with home fires than who've had to deal with criminals. And the safety precaution for kitchen fires or parachute malfunctions do not accidentally kill hundreds of people each year, nor are they liable to be stolen and used in a crime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

the guns used were the grandfather's work issued weapons; those, along with the squad car, were stolen after the grandfather and other adult were killed.)

You left out that he also stole and strapped on his Grandfather's bullet-proof vest. which would have made for an interesting scenario in Kennedy's world where the teachers would have enganged him in a fire fight.

Like everytime something like this happens, the answer to the problem is more guns. Thankfully this happens constantly in all western developed countries. Every couple of years, a kid loads up on ammo and guns and goes and kills some kids and teachers. It is just a fact of life in all western countries. Guns aren't made for killing, and he could have just as easily done all this with a knife or maybe even a hammer. Absolutely no difference. The problem isn't that guns are easily accessible to disturbed individuals, the problem is that there aren't enough guns out there to begin with.

[AMax 0]

Quote

How about that....a child kills a group of people, including his grandparents, and then takes his own life, and the thread is about gun control.

It's not about gun control. It's not about accessible handguns (the guns used were the grandfather's work issued weapons; those, along with the squad car, were stolen after the grandfather and other adult were killed.)

Yes it is and the fact that the kid got the weapon at home only poves this.

[AMax 0]

Quote

You left out that he also stole and strapped on his Grandfather's bullet-proof vest. which would have made for an interesting scenario in Kennedy's world where the teachers would have enganged him in a fire fight.

This idea is just totally absurd

Lol ...

Managers need guns to protect themselves from employees.
Employees also need them to protect themselves from managers.
I think I need to start carrying a gun every time I go shopping since there is no guarantee that a sales girl in Banana Republic will not open fire ...

Fill out the list

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Let's talk about the issue here. People are dead. It's not about gun control, or if you should/should not use them to protect your happy ass in your own home. It's about dead people, and a child who killed them.

I agree, Michele. But I don't think it would be possible to discuss that issue here in Speaker's Corner without it getting turned right back into a gun control debate.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If you really believe that your gun can be effectively used for self defense when someone attempts to rob you on parking lot at gun point, you must be a well trained and current combat professional. Ok, you might be, what about the average gun owner?

If you really believe the average gun owner doesn't have a chance in using a gun effectively in self defense, then please review some of the stories at these sites:

The NRA's "Armed Citizen" files:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

These stories prove that your assessment of the average gun owner's chances are incorrect.

Quote

A weapon does not do any good when it is locked in a safe, but then it becomes easily accessible for a kid who for whatever reason got pissed off at his classmates.

Not all homeowners have kids. Those that do, can buy special safes, which not only provide security from unauthorized access, but also make the gun instantly available when necessary.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The logic is the same - being prepared for emergencies. You threw out a common phrase, but did nothing to distinguish why the logic with skydiving is any different, thus you've not disproven the contradiction of your opposite positions.

You should read "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. It would explain the concept of relative levels of risk to you.

Ah, so you agree with me that the logic is the same - only the perceived level of risk may be different.

I'm all in favor of every citizen being free to determine their own risk assessments, and what they wish to do about them. If a one-in-500 chance of a parachute malfunction is good enough to carry a reserve parachute on every jump, then a one-in-whatever risk of criminal attack can also serve just fine as justification for having a gun handy. It's not up to you or anyone else, to decide for someone that they shouldn't have a gun, because the risk of needing it is "too low".

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How about those people who saw this kid, and didn't take the time to actually see how he was? Who didn't know the signs of depression? Who didn't understand that if a child is touched by suicide, they are far more likely to either be excessively violent or suicide themselves by the time they're 25? What about them? Who was paying attention to this kid?

Bingo! I applaud you for cutting to the chase on this incident, and getting to the root of the matter.

Too many people just find it so much easier to blame the guns for all violence, rather than to blame our culture.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

everytime something like this happens, the answer to the problem is more guns. Thankfully this happens constantly in all western developed countries.

"Thankfully"? You're glad that mass shootings happen? Well, how very decent of you.

And what is your solution to this problem? (I'm guessing you have none - you just like to complain about guns...)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Like everytime something like this happens, the answer to the problem is more guns. Thankfully this happens constantly in all western developed countries. Every couple of years, a kid loads up on ammo and guns and goes and kills some kids and teachers. It is just a fact of life in all western countries. Guns aren't made for killing, and he could have just as easily done all this with a knife or maybe even a hammer. Absolutely no difference. The problem isn't that guns are easily accessible to disturbed individuals, the problem is that there aren't enough guns out there to begin with.

Between you, kallend, and your strawmen, constructive discussion is becoming very, very difficult.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

 The problem isn't that guns are easily accessible to disturbed individuals,

the problem is that these guns would STILL be easily accessible to criminals even if we passed a law banning all guns. The world doesn't change magically just because some politician signs a bill. The guns would still be out there, and easily accessible especially to those who don't care about obeying the law.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that this incident would still have happened. A guy who is as f&*ked up as this guy was would not have stopped because of a law.

To steal a line from the move The Jerk: "We don't have defective cans laws, we have a defective person!!"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[AMax 0]

Quote

Quote

 The problem isn't that guns are easily accessible to disturbed individuals,

the problem is that these guns would STILL be easily accessible to criminals even if we passed a law banning all guns. The world doesn't change magically just because some politician signs a bill. The guns would still be out there, and easily accessible especially to those who don't care about obeying the law.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that this incident would still have happened. A guy who is as f&*ked up as this guy was would not have stopped because of a law.

To steal a line from the move The Jerk: "We don't have defective cans laws, we have a defective person!!"

Disagree
The kids involved in school shooting cannot be mixed with 'ordinary' criminals and/or psychotic adult individuals since their (kids) motifs are different and their course of action is usually less predictable.
I seriously doubt that defective kid with unstable personality would cause as much harm is he did not have an easy access to his parents weapons. It is hard to imagine a 15 years old buying illegal guns through a dealer.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I seriously doubt that defective kid with unstable personality would cause as much harm is he did not have an easy access to his parents weapons. It is hard to imagine a 15 years old buying illegal guns through a dealer.

But this kid would still have had his LEO grandfather to kill and take the guns from.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

"Thankfully"? You're glad that mass shootings happen? Well, how very decent of you.

I see sarcasm is lost on you.

Quote

And what is your solution to this problem? (I'm guessing you have none - you just like to complain about guns...)

My solution is to reduce the number of easily available guns. Exactly the opposite of your solution of getting more guns on the street.

These high school shootings are a predominately US problem. Why do you think that is John?

[SpeedRacer 1]

How do you reduce the number of easily available guns then?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

How do you reduce the number of easily available guns then?

It is done in many other countries, it really isn't that hard. The biggest problem is the outlandish number of politicians who would no longer have contributions to their campaigns.

[SpeedRacer 1]

You still haven't explained how you would do it here though.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You still haven't explained how you would do it here though.

Make them illegal, except for some very specific uses under very controlled conditions. Get rid of your second amendmend, triple the price with taxes on both guns and ammo.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Quote

You still haven't explained how you would do it here though.

Make them illegal, except for some very specific uses under very controlled conditions. Get rid of your second amendmend, triple the price with taxes on both guns and ammo.

You can try something like that, but I'm sure I echo the views of millions of Americans when I say:

OVER MY DEAD BODY.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

You still haven't explained how you would do it here though.

First step could be to remove GWB and his buddies. Next, to take away any influence/power, the NRA and its members have on the local economy.. in one word: It never could be done. US folks are lost, lost in their own, home made traps. It's your culture, like JohnRich said in one of his posts. To change a complete culture, it will need hundred of years, like in Iraq, f.e.?

But starting with GBW would not be the worst first step. Just a beginning.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Good grief--living in Europe must be like having the Government play the part of parent/Big Brother. For fuck's sake, don't people in Europe like personal freedom/civil liberties? This socialist mindset is sickening.