How many school shootings does it take?

[ktmcf121]

Giving students weapons is a poor idea. The last thing we want is angry and irrational-thinking students carrying guns in their pockets. Same goes for teachers. They can get angry a lot easier than most students...

 

 

 

did you even read my post? not every "angy and irrational-thinking" student would be allowed to have a weapon. it would be a long drawn-out process to obtain a liscense. and i don't even mean at high schools, you would still have to be of legal age to carry a gun.

 

 

 

next time try reading the WHOLE post please. #-o

[How2PK]

did you even read my post? not every "angy and irrational-thinking" student would be allowed to have a weapon. it would be a long drawn-out process to obtain a liscense. and i don't even mean at high schools, you would still have to be of legal age to carry a gun.

 

 

 

next time try reading the WHOLE post please. #-o

 

 

 

And still it's nonsense. I really can't believe how stupid some here are. Coming with these ideas. Come on.

[FuBai]

did you even read my post? not every "angy and irrational-thinking" student would be allowed to have a weapon. it would be a long drawn-out process to obtain a liscense. and i don't even mean at high schools, you would still have to be of legal age to carry a gun.

 

 

 

next time try reading the WHOLE post please. #-o

 

 

 

And still it's nonsense. I really can't believe how stupid some here are. Coming with these ideas. Come on.

 

 

 

I have to say arming 18 year old students seems idiotic to say the least. I'm 17 and am in my final year of school (I live in the UK). Fights still break out occasionaly, admitedly with increasing rarity as you go up the school, but who wants to know that in a moment of anger, half the sixth form could pull a gun and shoot you dead. Not because it was premeditated, but simply because they were so angry they were not thinking logicaly, and the first weapon that came to hand happened to be a pistol. I go to an all boy's school and we have enough of the "men's club" antics without turning the center into an improptue shooting range. They are 18 year old boys, trying to be macho and impress each other...giving them weapons is really, really not a good idea.

[warri0r45]

If the Virginia Tech attacker had used a knife, the death toll would have been far lower. If only that was the case...

 

 

 

It would have been even lower yet if one of the intructors or even the other students also had been armed and could have defended themselves properly.

 

 

 

As others have pointed out, that's a poor argument. You're suggesting a fix to the problem by adding what causes the problem into the scenario. The whole idea is a futile attempt at justifying guns.

[Hab3k]

In my opinion, there are 3 things:

 

1.People harassing others, just because they have different interests and a different character.

 

2.The responsibility is given to things like computer games.

 

3.In america, a 12-year old can buy a gun.

[warri0r45]

In my opinion, there are 3 things:

 

1.People harassing others, just because they have different interests and a different character.

 

2.The responsibility is given to things like computer games.

 

3.In america, a 12-year old can buy a gun.

 

 

 

All computer games give you are ideas. If you're not a psycho, you're not a psycho. I can play doom, arguably the most violent, sadistic game series created, and not feel the urge to go slaughtering people. If you're blaming school shootings mainly on video games, you're neglecting other much more crucial aspects.

[venomai]

Giving students weapons is a poor idea. The last thing we want is angry and irrational-thinking students carrying guns in their pockets. Same goes for teachers. They can get angry a lot easier than most students...

 

 

 

did you even read my post? not every "angy and irrational-thinking" student would be allowed to have a weapon. it would be a long drawn-out process to obtain a liscense. and i don't even mean at high schools, you would still have to be of legal age to carry a gun.

 

 

 

next time try reading the WHOLE post please. #-o

 

I did read your WHOLE post. :roll: It's worth pointing out that it had no mention of any legal process whatsoever, you simply stated that armed students/teachers would have helped.

 

 

 

Something tells me you have little experience with major high schools or universities. :-k When fights break out the last thing you want is a teacher/student with a gun.

[ktmcf121]

Giving students weapons is a poor idea. The last thing we want is angry and irrational-thinking students carrying guns in their pockets. Same goes for teachers. They can get angry a lot easier than most students...

 

 

 

did you even read my post? not every "angy and irrational-thinking" student would be allowed to have a weapon. it would be a long drawn-out process to obtain a liscense. and i don't even mean at high schools, you would still have to be of legal age to carry a gun.

 

 

 

next time try reading the WHOLE post please. #-o

 

I did read your WHOLE post. :roll: It's worth pointing out that it had no mention of any legal process whatsoever, you simply stated that armed students/teachers would have helped.

 

 

 

Something tells me you have little experience with major high schools or universities. :-k When fights break out the last thing you want is a teacher/student with a gun.

 

 

 

let me quote my original post.

 

 

 

of course, they would have to be highly regulated, i.e. having to take a college level course on gun safety, and aquire a liscense with a thorough background check.

 

 

 

if you're trying to suggest that i'm uneducated, you should probably rethink your argument. i graduated high school with a 4.0 and i'm currently maintaining a 3.7 in my sophomore year of a mechanical engineering degree.

 

 

 

yes there was the minor fight in high school, but those were usually the type of people who drop out and work at mcdonalds for the rest of thier lives. in college, you don't have NEARLY as many irrational-thinking people, and those type of people shouldn't and wouldn't be allowed to have a weapon. prove that you're responsible, and you can aquire a liscense.

 

 

 

 

As others have pointed out, that's a poor argument. You're suggesting a fix to the problem by adding what causes the problem into the scenario. The whole idea is a futile attempt at justifying guns.

 

 

 

once again, you are bringing up the argument that guns shoot themselves. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. the problem in most all school shootings like this is that the shooters were neglected, often picked on, and if/when they tried to get help, they were rejected. people need to be more aware of potential dangers, and try to help people in need.

 

 

 

I have to say arming 18 year old students seems idiotic to say the least.

 

 

 

well, the legal age to own a handgun in america is 21. it's amazing what 3 years and a year or two of college does to your mentality. i've been in college for 2 years, and i have yet to see a fight over "who can lift the most weight" or "who gets the most girls." actually, i have yet to see a single act of physical violence.

 

 

 

And still it's nonsense. I really can't believe how stupid some here are. Coming with these ideas. Come on.

 

 

 

at least the other people who insulted my opinion at least attempted to provide a reason why they believed it was stupid. you, however, contributed nothing.

[venomai]

Sorry ktmcf121, my bad. #-o My original post was in reply to vilageidiotx's post (who was replying to an earlier post of mine). When you quoted me I wrongfully assumed it was him replying and didn't bother to check the name.

 

 

 

Anyways, after reading your original post I have a few comments to add... :)

 

 

 

tbh, i'm starting to think that allowing concealed weapons on a college campus(by liscensed, trained citizens only) would actually help the situation rather than hurt it.

 

 

 

of course, they would have to be highly regulated, i.e. having to take a college level course on gun safety, and aquire a liscense with a thorough background check.

 

 

 

had only one person in that VT classroom had a gun other than the killer, he might not have killed anyone, or the death toll would have been far lower, at the very least. hypothetically, of course.

 

I see what you're saying. Hypothetically this could have prevented a lot of deaths...

 

 

 

But the main problem would be with responsibility. It's very difficult to know who's truly responsible with a gun.

 

Also, the student wouldn't be able to party much, and certainly wouldn't be able to get drunk or high (this isn't a problem for some, though).

 

Another problem is friends -- the gun & license would have to be kept completely secret from friends. If the word gets out, the student would become a target. Not to mention theft, it wouldn't be hard for a buddy to grab it out of the student's bag while they sleep.

 

 

 

I have to ask... what kind of student would willingly pay so much time and money for a license they probably won't get? And if they manage to get it, how much time and money must they spend practicing regularly?

 

Once they get the gun, what will they do with it? Put it in their pocket for 99% of their school life, waiting for the right moment?

 

 

 

The whole thing seems like a waste. The idea has potential, but it would never work and would probably just increase gun use in schools.

 

 

 

On the other hand, hiring armed security and posing them as students could work, for a few reasons:

 

1. Their job is to carry concealed weapons at all times, even if there is no immediate threat.

 

2. They won't actually be in school so they won't lose study time.

 

3. Many of them have already gone through extensive testing to ensure they are responsible with weapons.

 

4. They are experienced with guns and fighting, and they are trained to react calmly in dangerous situations.

 

5. By not socialising with students/teachers at the school there won't be the same risk of others knowing.

 

 

 

Either way, the government would consider it a waste. They wouldn't spend that kind of money just to save a few lives.

 

The money would be better spent controlling gun use across the country.

[ktmcf121]

meh, the more i hear about this, the more i want to blame school shootings on bad parenting/lack of parenting.

 

 

 

i try to read as many news articles and get as much information on this as i can, because as hard as i try, i can't think of a good reason to go off and kill 32 people and then commit suicide.

 

 

 

that just doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. then i found this, and it made me realize something. this is a quote from the letter he sent to nbc, and i've only seen it on one article.

 

 

 

"You pick out the Weak and the Defenseless and turbo-(expletive deleted) us for your own pleasure and put on faces of devout Christians in front of your parents and strangers," it read. "You drink your vodka, share needles and go on your escapades on Saturday night and go to church on Sunday morning."

 

 

 

as soon as i saw this i realized something. i know people like this. i can't stand people like this. but why don't i kill people? because my parents taught me to deal with things like this. my parents taught me from a young age that people are hypocrites, and nothing can be done about it. more can be accomplished by ignoring those people and not letting thier hypocracy ruin my life.

 

 

 

cho's parents were not bad, they didn't abuse him, or neglect him, from everything i've read, they were simply overwhelmed by american culture. they didn't know how to deal with it, so they couldn't effectively raise thier supposedly autistic child. i know i would have a hell of a time rasing a child in korea, but it would be a hard enough time to raise a child with health issues in america, much less in an unfamiliar country.....

[warri0r45]

 

 

As others have pointed out, that's a poor argument. You're suggesting a fix to the problem by adding what causes the problem into the scenario. The whole idea is a futile attempt at justifying guns.

 

 

 

once again, you are bringing up the argument that guns shoot themselves. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. the problem in most all school shootings like this is that the shooters were neglected, often picked on, and if/when they tried to get help, they were rejected. people need to be more aware of potential dangers, and try to help people in need.

 

 

 

 

Of course the problem lies outside the avaliability of guns. It's the carrier of the weapon that makes it lethal. So to an extent I agree with your argument, we must educate more and help keep weapons away from trouble cases. Saying guns are not the problem, however, is not entirely correct. Thier avaliability is partly to blame. Perhaps I didn't specify this in my original post. Overall, I was commenting on the mentality that throwing more guns at the problem would fix it, which it wont. Keep in mind others that have this argument wont look outside the square like you, I or others here have.

[jgrazotis]

whats this columbine thing that happened..?

[Guest XplsvBam]

I don't understand how any body can blame guns at all. Partly still doesn't make any sense. IF you are going to make them illegal why not just ban all gun making and scrap all the ones in existence.

 

 

 

Pipe Bombs ARE NOT LEGAL. Do people still use them?

[ktmcf121]

Keep in mind others that have this argument wont look outside the square like you, I or others here have.

 

 

 

if you couldn't tell from the rest of my posts on the 3 topics that encompass this subject, i've been running every possible solution that anyone's come up with through my mind. i'm as confused as anyone as to why something like this has to happen, what motivates a person to do something like this, why it couldn't have been caught and stopped sooner.

 

 

 

after nearly a week of reading news articles, listening to the opinions of others, i've come up with a solution that i believe would help the problem. just because i choose to defend my argument doesn't make me narrow-minded, nor does it mean that i'm not considering the opinions of others when they argue that my solution wouldn't work.

 

 

 

so keep in mind that when i argue with you, i need to have read and considered your argument before i can counter it with my own.

[venomai]

meh, the more i hear about this, the more i want to blame school shootings on bad parenting/lack of parenting

 

Parenting is only a minor reason for school shootings. Divorce, abuse, alcohol etc. all contribute to violent nature, but they are rarely the main factors in such large-scale violence.

 

In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, it's a much more serious matter. He was born with mental illness and his mind worked differently. He needed serious treatment.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness

 

 

 

i'm as confused as anyone as to why something like this has to happen, what motivates a person to do something like this

 

I believe it's just a question of morals. Some people can kill without feeling anything simply because they have different morals than the rest of us.

 

 

 

And it also has to do with beliefs. People might believe that they are serving God (or the country) by killing.

[warri0r45]

Keep in mind others that have this argument wont look outside the square like you, I or others here have.

 

 

 

if you couldn't tell from the rest of my posts on the 3 topics that encompass this subject, i've been running every possible solution that anyone's come up with through my mind. i'm as confused as anyone as to why something like this has to happen, what motivates a person to do something like this, why it couldn't have been caught and stopped sooner.

 

 

 

after nearly a week of reading news articles, listening to the opinions of others, i've come up with a solution that i believe would help the problem. just because i choose to defend my argument doesn't make me narrow-minded, nor does it mean that i'm not considering the opinions of others when they argue that my solution wouldn't work.

 

 

 

so keep in mind that when i argue with you, i need to have read and considered your argument before i can counter it with my own.

 

 

 

I'm missing something... Right? I didn't thoroughly document all of your posts on all three of the other topics, sorry.

[ktmcf121]

 

I believe it's just a question of morals. Some people can kill without feeling anything simply because they have different morals than the rest of us.

 

 

 

And it also has to do with beliefs. People might believe that they are serving God (or the country) by killing.

 

 

 

so then in this case it would be impossible to stop tragic acts like this from happening because you will never convince these people that thier morals or beliefs are wrong. and who are you to tell them that they're wrong? unless you want to say that some people need to be opressed for the good of society, in which case the entire foundation of the US would have to be overturned. i think my head just exploded. :?

 

 

 

I'm missing something... Right? I didn't thoroughly document all of your posts on all three of the other topics, sorry.

 

 

 

i didn't mean to be sarcastic, i'm just trying to say that i AM considering other people's opinions, or "looking outside the square" as you put it.

[warri0r45]

 

 

As others have pointed out, that's a poor argument. You're suggesting a fix to the problem by adding what causes the problem into the scenario. The whole idea is a futile attempt at justifying guns.

 

 

 

once again, you are bringing up the argument that guns shoot themselves. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. the problem in most all school shootings like this is that the shooters were neglected, often picked on, and if/when they tried to get help, they were rejected. people need to be more aware of potential dangers, and try to help people in need.

 

 

 

 

Of course the problem lies outside the avaliability of guns. It's the carrier of the weapon that makes it lethal. So to an extent I agree with your argument, we must educate more and help keep weapons away from trouble cases. Saying guns are not the problem, however, is not entirely correct. Thier avaliability is partly to blame. Perhaps I didn't specify this in my original post. Overall, I was commenting on the mentality that throwing more guns at the problem would fix it, which it wont. Keep in mind others that have this argument wont look outside the square like you, I or others here have.

 

 

 

I know it's not a real big deal in the scheme of things, but try and read a little more carefully next time please.

[venomai]

so then in this case it would be impossible to stop tragic acts like this from happening because you will never convince these people that thier morals or beliefs are wrong.

 

Don't quote me on this, but I believe modern psychology can usually "fix" (for lack of a better term) one's morals.

 

 

 

Yes, it's impossible to stop these acts from happening. But, with a lack of weapons, these acts would be far less damaging. :)

 

 

 

and who are you to tell them that they're wrong? unless you want to say that some people need to be opressed for the good of society, in which case the entire foundation of the US would have to be overturned. i think my head just exploded.

 

Basically, your morals are only right if they follow the legal morals of your country. Otherwise you may need medical attention, depending on the severity of your beliefs. :-# Most people don't like to think of it that way, though.

[ktmcf121]

 

I know it's not a real big deal in the scheme of things, but try and read a little more carefully next time please.

 

 

 

now i don't know what i'm missing... :? i guess i just got confused by your sentence structure? Maybe i stuck a period in there instead of a comma.

 

 

 

#-o

 

 

 

Don't quote me on this, but I believe modern psychology can usually "fix" (for lack of a better term) one's morals.

 

 

 

Yes, it's impossible to stop these acts from happening. But, with a lack of weapons, these acts would be far less damaging.

 

 

 

haha. i quoted you! yeah, i have no idea about what psychology can or can't do, i always assumed it was a load of crap. but you still won't be able to convince me that taking away the right to own guns will prevent criminals(who excel at breaking the law) or mentally-disturbed persons(who feel a compelling need to kill as many people as possible) from obtaining illegal(possibly more dangerous) weapons. unless you somehow eliminated every single weapon on the planet, and prevented any more from ever being created. :shock: not a very feasible solution.

 

 

 

Basically, your morals are only right if they follow the legal morals of your country. Otherwise you may need medical attention, depending on the severity of your beliefs. Silenced Most people don't like to think of it that way, though.

 

 

 

but what if my country was politically corrupt, encouraged crime, and generally went against my beliefs? does that make me mentally ill? which brings me back to the question, who's morals are "right"? the ones that benefit society as a whole? depends on your definition of "benefit society"

 

 

 

i'm not trying to say that i don't agree with you here, but just trying to bring this argument up before someone comes out with "OMG i hate my government, and how dare you call me mentally ill!"

[Grim_Jokes]

so then in this case it would be impossible to stop tragic acts like this from happening because you will never convince these people that thier morals or beliefs are wrong.

 

Don't quote me on this, but I believe modern psychology can usually "fix" (for lack of a better term) one's morals.

 

 

 

Yes, it's impossible to stop these acts from happening. But, with a lack of weapons, these acts would be far less damaging. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern psychology is a crock of [cabbage]. I have my set of beliefs alright, and even if they differ from yours, they're not as wrong as yours. Society has been known to be wrong many times. Look at history. Sometimes majority isn't always right. Case and point: The Western world.

[FuBai]

so then in this case it would be impossible to stop tragic acts like this from happening because you will never convince these people that thier morals or beliefs are wrong.

 

Don't quote me on this, but I believe modern psychology can usually "fix" (for lack of a better term) one's morals.

 

 

 

Yes, it's impossible to stop these acts from happening. But, with a lack of weapons, these acts would be far less damaging. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern psychology is a crock of [cabbage]. I have my set of beliefs alright, and even if they differ from yours, they're not as wrong as yours. Society has been known to be wrong many times. Look at history. Sometimes majority isn't always right. Case and point: The Western world.

 

 

 

There is no reason to believe that the morals the majority entertain at any point in time may be objectivley given the monicas "right" or "wrong". A moral code can not be ranked in terms of morality unless there is an externa fixed guideline against which it may be measured. Religious people hold that this moral measuring stick is god given, I am not religious and I would say that there is no such thing. They are simply different points of view, diverging from one point of basic prefice.

[ktmcf121]

so then in this case it would be impossible to stop tragic acts like this from happening because you will never convince these people that thier morals or beliefs are wrong.

 

Don't quote me on this, but I believe modern psychology can usually "fix" (for lack of a better term) one's morals.

 

 

 

Yes, it's impossible to stop these acts from happening. But, with a lack of weapons, these acts would be far less damaging. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern psychology is a crock of [cabbage]. I have my set of beliefs alright, and even if they differ from yours, they're not as wrong as yours. Society has been known to be wrong many times. Look at history. Sometimes majority isn't always right. Case and point: The Western world.

 

 

 

so then you're saying that "western" society is "wrong" because thier beliefs are different than yours? :-k

[Myweponsg00d]

This is all a real shame. I cannot offer a solution because I don't believe there is one. The world has become a horrible, sad, and scary place these days.

 

 

 

I'm not a religious man, but if there exists a God or Gods, I pray for the families of every person involved in a school related shooting, death, or other horrible occurance.

[warri0r45]

 

I know it's not a real big deal in the scheme of things, but try and read a little more carefully next time please.

 

 

 

now i don't know what i'm missing... :? i guess i just got confused by your sentence structure? Maybe i stuck a period in there instead of a comma.

 

 

 

#-o

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok.

 

 

 

I originally said that not everyone would look outside the square at the problem like you, I or others here have and may adopt the argument as an excuse to proliferate the more crude, 'redneck' ideology of guns.

 

 

 

You thought I said you weren't looking outside the square.

 

 

 

I highlighted this part of my original post -

 

Keep in mind others that have this argument wont look outside the square like you, I or others here have.

 

 

 

to alert to your attention that I wasn't saying you are one of the narrow minded ones.

 

 

 

Hope this clears it up.