Thread: US school shootings Shocking

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's a fact. The U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world, and our poor people are rich by world standards.

Not that you don't necessarily have a point but the wealth of a country is blatantly the wrong measure. Know what the second wealthiest country in the world is? China.

Originally Posted by BossMan

Since when did the US standard for wealth become the world standard for wealth? This is what I'm talking about when I say Americans can be arrogant. We have our own values just as other people in the world have their own values. In certain parts of India they don't give a rats ass about any of the technology you just mentioned and don't gauge wealth based of that. The Amish reject technology all together.

Believe it or not, but there are people out there that live happier lives out of a shed then do people in mansions.

The majority of poor people are not poor because they are lazy, this is something Mitt Romney would say. Just because you were raised in an environment were you are enabled and given the proper tools to be successful doesn't mean everyone else is. Some people are raised in families that don't have the money to send their children to university, and even if they do go to university through student loans the current job market is so shitty they would probably end up busting tables for a few years to pay those loans off and even that is under the assumption said poor person even has the capabilities to succeed in school were he can go to university to begin with, after all not all of us share the same mental capabilities. Not to mention the other complications that come with this like commuting, textbooks, and supplies.

How about a skilled laborer who lost his job due to the recession, and has a wife and 3 children? How is he suppose to pay his bills let alone put food on the table? He can't find a job because no one is hiring, his children are starving so what is he suppose to do? Rob someone, maybe, after all guns are the easiest way to gain leverage against people.

Also guns are not all expensive, not everyone goes for a Smith & Wesson or Glock. You can get handguns for under $60, which to a desperate person may seem like a long term investment.

You simply cannot say people are poor because they are lazy, its infinitely more complicated that. Also I'm not saying the wealth disparity in the US is the singular reason for gun violence but rather a contributing factor.

Why don't you do a bit of research, how many Americans do you think make less than $25,000 dollars a year (I'll save you the trouble, 36% that's 108 million Americans). You probably live in a wealthy neighborhood and go to school with other wealthy people so your view is not quite broad enough to understand how dire the economic situation currently is in America, you simply have no idea and it boils down to a lot more then laziness.

FYI, the amount of Americans that make over $100,000 a year is a paltry 10%

I am not the one arguing that wealth issues are the big factor behind our gun violence. If somebody is happy without much money, then that's great. I've been there. I grew up poor and watched my parents work hard to become rich. They are millionaires now, and they did it on their own. Also, I am not in school. I am 41 years old, and I work for a living. I know very well how much of a bitch this recession is, and I do have sympathy for that. It is part of the reason I said that most poor people are lazy. I know that not all are.

Any way, I know what it's like to be poor, as a kid and as an adult, and I have never robbed anybody. There are close to 200 countries that are poorer than the U.S., so what you seem to be arguing is that our rich people are too rich? Is that your point? Should we get onto them for doing too well? Please explain. Should we train kids from an early age to not try very hard in school and at sports because success is a bad thing? What is the message we need to be sending?

Somebody who can afford $60 for a gun can buy a lot of groceries. Poverty in the U.S. is not a major issue, relatively speaking. There is a much bigger factor involved in this.

Originally Posted by khh

There's a difference between a hunting rifle and a handgun. The former is meant to put food on the table, while the latter is meant to kill people.


No, no and no. If you look up GDP per capia, you will see that this is simply not true. But it is a moot point anyway. As it turns out social inequality is a far better correlated with social problems and unrest than absolute wealth, and the US has a very great difference between rich and poor. This is a good video on the subject.

We are not the richest per capita, but we are the richest, and our poor class is the richest poor class or at least way up there. If they lost their place, they still tend to have the luxuries I listed. They aren't exactly going anorexic with flies on their lips. Like I said, our poor class has a problem with obesity. That is the truth. I live in what is both the poorest and the most obese U.S. state. Think about that.

About this gap between rich and poor thing... Are our rich people doing too well? Should we tell them to knock it off and not be so successful? If our rich people had been taught as kids to try to suck more at their activities, would the school shooting have been prevented? Talk to me.

Originally Posted by debrajane

17 years ago Martin Bryant shot 35 in Tasmainia. Prime Minister John Howard brought in Australia's gun laws. Then there was, and is, the big gun buy-back.

gun suicide and shootings plumeted.

Now, you're 17 times more likely to be shot in America than Australia.

We do get shootings here but it is usually between Bikey gangs.

Please post a trustworthy link on that. If it worked in Australia, it says something about the tendency of Australians to obey the law. We have an enormous thug element that Australia doesn't have. Banning guns in the U.S. would result in a nightmare.

As I asked earlier (another one of my questions that is being ignored)... If guns are banned in the U.S., can you guarantee me that the next asshole who breaks into my house won't have a gun? A long time ago, my dad stopped a late night burglary in my house with a gun. How sure are you that the next scum bag won't have a gun if I don't?

Originally Posted by Xei

Not that you don't necessarily have a point but the wealth of a country is blatantly the wrong measure. Know what the second wealthiest country in the world is? China.

Yeah, I know that our population of 320 million has something to do with our ranking and that we are not in first place per capita, but the ranking does suggest that poverty is not a big issue here.

I thought Japan was second and Germany was third. China has been climbing the ladder ever since they became much more capitalistic.

A well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.

Originally Posted by Alric

I think drugs are a big part of it, and I am not talking about illegal drugs but the legal kind. Things like antidepressants and extremely dangerous if not properly prescribed and used. Almost all of these mass shootings, and a lot of the other really sick things people do in the US are linked to drug use.

If you suffer a sudden psychotic episode even without a gun you might go on a rampage and start stabbing everyone and it would be hard to stop you.

I totally agree. So much drugs are classified as illegal while there are doctors literally handing out anti-depressants, sleeping pills and headache pills like they are candy. I knew an american girl and whenever she had a headache she would take four paracetamols instead of one just because she could. I even heard that around 1/3 of the american population will take sleeping pills in some point of their life.
It makes very little sense, they become stressed so they are prescribed anti-depressants and sleeping pills, these in turn cause them to become even more depressed and the cycle continues. I wouldn't be surprised if the american pharmaceutical industry was purposefully keeping this going instead of getting people real help.

Originally Posted by Ciej

A well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.

If we had a police state, we could get guns out of the hands of citizens. It worked for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Qadafi, Kim Jong Il, and Pol Pot. It worked very much to their advantage.

US has the largest military in the world, bigger than just everyone else combined. Most of the general public doesn't want a military that big but the government just doesn't listen to the people on this issue. So of course people worry about the government. If we gave up all guns, it wouldn't take much for someone to become a dictator.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, I know that our population of 320 million has something to do with our ranking and that we are not in first place per capita, but the ranking does suggest that poverty is not a big issue here.

I thought Japan was second and Germany was third. China has been climbing the ladder ever since they became much more capitalistic.

Here's a graph for the 2011 GDPs;

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's only a few years until China tops the list, barring a crash. Although if that occurred America would probably go insolvent and crash even harder, what with their debt nightmare and all.

Originally Posted by Xei

Here's a graph for the 2011 GDPs;

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's only a few years until China tops the list, barring a crash. Although if that occurred America would probably go insolvent and crash even harder, what with their debt nightmare and all.

Wow, they passed Japan and Germany in a pretty short time. They still have less than half our GDP, but they are becoming more capitalistic and becoming a lot wealthier. If they became capitalistic enough, they would pass us.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are not the richest per capita, but we are the richest, and our poor class is the richest poor class or at least way up there. If they lost their place, they still tend to have the luxuries I listed. They aren't exactly going anorexic with flies on their lips. Like I said, our poor class has a problem with obesity. That is the truth. I live in what is both the poorest and the most obese U.S. state. Think about that.

About this gap between rich and poor thing... Are our rich people doing too well? Should we tell them to knock it off and not be so successful? If our rich people had been taught as kids to try to suck more at their activities, would the school shooting have been prevented? Talk to me.

As Xei noted GDP by itself isn't really the best measure of wealth. Personally I'd think mean income might be a good measure, but I haven't seen that used much in the literature.

Yes, obesity is quite common in the US. It's actually a form of malnutrition. I remember reading something about why obesity was more common among the poor, and I believe it had to do with education primarily. There is a strong correlation between wealth and education.

It's human nature to compare ourselves to (and judge others against) those close to us, those we can see, rather than those we theoretically know to exists. So while the poor of the US might have much more than the poor of certain African countries, say, they have less than everyone else they see around them. This leads to feelings of inferiority and frustration. According to the video I posted, the economic inequality actually affects both the rich and the poor adversely, though the poor more so.

The answer to the problem is of course not that each individual should perform worse, it's that society should be organized differently. Redistribution of wealth (though high taxes) is one model. Theoretically it's the social stress economic inequality causes that's the source of the problems, and not the wealth itself, but money is pretty tightly tied to social status. Social status is very important, and not surprisingly a low social status also means a higher likelihood for mental problems. Thus a more egalitarian society might be better.

Besides, you actually have pretty low social mobility in the US compared to other wealthy countries.

Anyway, it's all in the video. It's quite short and to the point, really.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

As I asked earlier (another one of my questions that is being ignored)... If guns are banned in the U.S., can you guarantee me that the next asshole who breaks into my house won't have a gun? A long time ago, my dad stopped a late night burglary in my house with a gun. How sure are you that the next scum bag won't have a gun if I don't?

Of course no-one could guarantee that, but if there were less guns in circulation in total, the chances of the burglar having a gun would also be smaller. Besides, I've read that in most gun related incidents in the US people are actually being harmed by their own guns. Don't have a link to back that up, though.
Also, most burglars can be stopped with a flashlight. Most burglars only want to steal stuff, and will run when confronted.

The situation in the US could also be greatly improved without banning firearms all together. In Norway, for instance, it's required by law that all guns be stored in safe-like gun cabinets that are bolted to the walls, and you're required to provide proof of owning this before being allowed to buy them. This is to prevent accidents (like children playing with guns), and to make firearms harder to steal.

You do realize your suggestions would not have stopped the shooting in Connecticut right?

I've seen that same virus on reddit and facebook lately, about Australia. Gun control laws got ratified after a shooting, and now you're less likely to die by gun in Australia than the US. This is a classic example an correlation being mistaken for causation. Like I said earlier, Canada has more guns in circulation per capita than the US, but less gun related deaths. Everyone wants to blame the gun laws for this tragedy, and it's getting fucking silly. Further oppression will only cause more violence, ultimately. It's the same kind of reaction to every problem that got the US into this mental illness to begin with. Rather than address problems, we drug them and suppress them.

I'm down with gun control, though, as long as no one can point a gun at you in order to enforce this gun control. We need guns to protect our democracy from our government and our land from potential invasion. It may sound paranoid but I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need one and not have it.

I Can get Illegal guns in Montana, A place where gun laws are not at all strict, a place where gun crimes is not very high, and I used to be able to get Illegal guns if I wanted to. Its because I know Criminals, Reason being that Marijuana is Illegal and I like to smoke. Pretty sure if the gun laws came along my Criminal associates wouldn't be just stop selling guns.

Also pretty sure someone who went of the deep end wouldn't just not kill if they didn't have access to a gun.

Maybe the law just needs to be a bit more specific. Maybe they just need to explicitly spell out that it's illegal to kill someone by shooting them with a gun. It's probably just a big misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by khh

As Xei noted GDP by itself isn't really the best measure of wealth. Personally I'd think mean income might be a good measure, but I haven't seen that used much in the literature.

GDP by itself is the measure of the overall wealth of a nation. GDP per capita is the measure of average individual wealth. Having fat ass poor people is a measure of how much poor people are stuffing their faces with Big Macs and milk shakes. Obesity is not a result of malnutrition. Being abnormally skinny is a result of malnutrition. Being obese is a result of bad nutrition and face stuffing.

Originally Posted by khh

It's human nature to compare ourselves to (and judge others against) those close to us, those we can see, rather than those we theoretically know to exists. So while the poor of the US might have much more than the poor of certain African countries, say, they have less than everyone else they see around them. This leads to feelings of inferiority and frustration. According to the video I posted, the economic inequality actually affects both the rich and the poor adversely, though the poor more so.

The answer to the problem is of course not that each individual should perform worse, it's that society should be organized differently. Redistribution of wealth (though high taxes) is one model. Theoretically it's the social stress economic inequality causes that's the source of the problems, and not the wealth itself, but money is pretty tightly tied to social status. Social status is very important, and not surprisingly a low social status also means a higher likelihood for mental problems. Thus a more egalitarian society might be better.

Besides, you actually have pretty low social mobility in the US compared to other wealthy countries.

Anyway, it's all in the video. It's quite short and to the point, really.

Then, what you are saying is that we should not teach people from an early age not to be successful. We should instead take away people's success after they achieve it. Is that accurate? People are being too successful, and that is frustrating the unsuccessful, and the result is mass murders with guns? I disagree. I think everybody should be encouraged to succeed if that is what they want. We have major access to that in the United States. The opportunities are there for those who want to use them.

I don't think the success of the successful has the first thing to do with psychopathic killing sprees. It has a lot to do with class envy and dysfunctional politics, but not psycho wig outs with guns. Bullying in schools seems to be the major factor behind school shootings, and that is a huge problem that needs to be fixed in a hurry. I think it is the main factor behind most psychopathic rampages. Envy is not enough. It takes a history of abuse or a major mental illness.

Originally Posted by khh

Of course no-one could guarantee that, but if there were less guns in circulation in total, the chances of the burglar having a gun would also be smaller. Besides, I've read that in most gun related incidents in the US people are actually being harmed by their own guns. Don't have a link to back that up, though.
Also, most burglars can be stopped with a flashlight. Most burglars only want to steal stuff, and will run when confronted.

The situation in the US could also be greatly improved without banning firearms all together. In Norway, for instance, it's required by law that all guns be stored in safe-like gun cabinets that are bolted to the walls, and you're required to provide proof of owning this before being allowed to buy them. This is to prevent accidents (like children playing with guns), and to make firearms harder to steal.

It cannot be guaranteed that the next person who breaks into my house or threatens me otherwise will not have a gun, so I deserve the right to have a gun to protect myself in case he does have one, in which case he might try to use it. I deserve to have a gun in case somebody tries to attack me with his fists. It's like a seatbelt as far as I am concerned. The burglars, car jackers, muggers, bullies, or whoever else it is might require more than a flashlight to be stopped. The government has no business telling me I can't have a gun. I would also need a guarantee that my government will never go 1984 on me, but it already has. I want my gun, I need my gun, and I am keeping my gun.

It is true that accidents happen in homes, but that is a result of lack of education and common gun sense. There are zero cases of that happening in the houses of NRA members. There have also been lots of incidents of kids getting hurt and/or killed by stoves, chemical products under the kitchen sink, cars going down the road, stairs, and other things that it would be unjust to ban.

UM, while I agree that a disenfranchised lower class has nothing to do with killing sprees and I'd hate to derail the thread, I'm getting pretty sick of your argument. It wasn't true last time you brought it up and it still isn't true now.

1. I feel more motivated to work if I feel like I'm actually helping keep my community running. I am motivated more by collectivism because I feel like what I'm doing is worth a damn. You frame the argument as if collectivism would stifle people's motivation to be successful, but that's nonsense, it would encourage many people to work harder.

2. Social welfare and progressive taxes do not punish successful people. Paying 10%-20% more taxes for between 5 and 50 times more wealth is a drop in the bucket and frankly the wealthy should stop being whiny bitches about it. For fuck's sake, go work in a factory if you're upset about the tax rate. Oh wait, except that even if you pay 10% more taxes you're still making enough to live like a fucking king. Seriously, the wealthy in this country are the biggest fucking whiners I have ever seen. They have everything and it's never enough. I'm surprised they stopped bitching about the emancipation proclamation.

3. You can argue, if you like, that because of the greed of a few the majority of this country lives better off than they would. But this is also a myth, the federal government has traditionally funded all the endeavors of the greedy. The only thing private about capitalism in this country is the profit. The risk, investment and maintenance is supported by subsidies, meaning by the tax-payers.

4. And just for good measure let me go ahead and mention that capitalists do not earn nor deserve their wealth. That was never a founding principle of capitalism. Capitalism means a small handful of people control the capital. They were not meant to hoard it or launder it, they were meant to reinvest the capital back into the the industry and local society. None of the founding fathers of capitalism believed that the owners simply deserved more money.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Why was the shooter a lonely social outcast? why did he choose to shoot all those children? all over the world there are social outcasts who deal with it in other ways.
If it happened once or twice then no link could be established but if it has happened tens of times surely there must be something wrong with the american culture.

duchraptor

A mother here in my city is changing Australian culture from the grass-roots (imo)

Here in Adelaide, Australia,

a mum of two boys talked to them about what happened and offered a buy-back scheme for their toy automatic guns, and violent video games.

Now, this idea is spreading.

"The organisers hope the event will include "barbecue" education on guns and violence and the crushing of the toy guns and violent video games.

The event is schedueled for early February." (from todays Advertiser page 6)

I keep you posted.

part of Original Poster's post (#62)

I've seen that same virus on reddit and facebook lately, about Australia. Gun control laws got ratified after a shooting, and now you're less likely to die by gun in Australia than the US. This is a classic example an correlation being mistaken for causation. Like I said earlier, Canada has more guns in circulation per capita than the US, but less gun related deaths. Everyone wants to blame the gun laws for this tragedy, and it's getting fucking silly. Further oppression will only cause more violence, ultimately. It's the same kind of reaction to every problem that got the US into this mental illness to begin with. Rather than address problems, we drug them and suppress them.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

UM, while I agree that a disenfranchised lower class has nothing to do with killing sprees and I'd hate to derail the thread, I'm getting pretty sick of your argument. It wasn't true last time you brought it up and it still isn't true now.

It has always been true. If you are getting sick, then you need to either see a doctor or learn to accept the realities of the psychology of rich people. To be extra thorough, you should probably learn to accept the psychology of people in general. I will go ahead and add that I don't think you have me in mind when you get up and go to work. Did you see what I said earlier about why China is now the second richest country in the world? They have passed Japan and Germany. What is your explanation? Have they gotten more collectivist? No, they have done exactly the opposite. It works. If that makes you hopelessly sick, then go live in your closet because it is reality. Reality has to be dealt with accordingly by those who are willing to face it.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

1. I feel more motivated to work if I feel like I'm actually helping keep my community running. I am motivated more by collectivism because I feel like what I'm doing is worth a damn. You frame the argument as if collectivism would stifle people's motivation to be successful, but that's nonsense, it would encourage many people to work harder.

It does stifle. It stifled the Soviet Union out of existence, and it stifles North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam into extreme shit-holism. Fortunately, China is coming out of that. People aren't getting out of bed at 7 a.m. and working 40+ hours a week and going, "Golly, I get to go make money for my community." The rich aren't giving the first spec of thought to it. You even said that in your post. Their thoughts are, "Holy shit! If this deal doesn't go 100% as planned, I could lose a dollar!" They count every fraction of a cent. The more money you steal from them, the less they are willing to spend. They are tight as 70's redneck blue jeans. The less you steal from them, the more they are willing to spend. Playing games with that has dire consequences on an economy. Did you ever give me your opinion on the effectiveness of grade redistribution in schools? If so, please remind me of what it is.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

2. Social welfare and progressive taxes do not punish successful people. Paying 10%-20% more taxes for between 5 and 50 times more wealth is a drop in the bucket and frankly the wealthy should stop being whiny bitches about it. For fuck's sake, go work in a factory if you're upset about the tax rate. Oh wait, except that even if you pay 10% more taxes you're still making enough to live like a fucking king. Seriously, the wealthy in this country are the biggest fucking whiners I have ever seen. They have everything and it's never enough. I'm surprised they stopped bitching about the emancipation proclamation.

They do punish rich people because they take away what belongs to them. The rich pay a fuck ton in taxes as it is. The top 20% pays 71% of the taxes. Taking another 10% of their income away would be even more stealing, and it would very much affect how much they spend. An economy is fueled by the spending of money, and it is dependent on the functioning of businesses. It's not exactly the poor who are creating the masses of jobs. No matter what you think of greed, it is reality. If it weren't, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Everybody would just give, and the law wouldn't have to require giving. The law requires giving because it is not what people naturally do.

I agree that the wealthy tend to be the biggest whiners out there, aside from the people who are jealous as shit of them. They are very whiney about their money. It means the world to them. That is why fucking with their money is a terrible idea. It is their livelihood, and they are not so willing to spend it when they feel like it has already been spent too much on government stuff.

Of course I am speaking in generalizations with this, so I will point out that I am talking about vast majorities. I know rich people well, and almost all of them are absolutely obsessed with money and are watching every penny. The rest of society is pretty damn selfish too. Do you honestly think about how you are making money for the rest of society when you are at work? Are you working extra hard because of that thought? Be honest.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

3. You can argue, if you like, that because of the greed of a few the majority of this country lives better off than they would. But this is also a myth, the federal government has traditionally funded all the endeavors of the greedy. The only thing private about capitalism in this country is the profit. The risk, investment and maintenance is supported by subsidies, meaning by the tax-payers.

No, not the greed of the few. The greed of pretty much everybody. Banks generally do the work you are talking about. Government is not necessary for it, and lowering taxes would make them even less relevant. That is what the government is afraid of. It is run by control freaks.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

4. And just for good measure let me go ahead and mention that capitalists do not earn nor deserve their wealth. That was never a founding principle of capitalism. Capitalism means a small handful of people control the capital. They were not meant to hoard it or launder it, they were meant to reinvest the capital back into the the industry and local society. None of the founding fathers of capitalism believed that the owners simply deserved more money.

Capitalism involves people making their own decisions on how to spend their own money that belongs to them. The natural tendency is to buy things and invest money. The rich don't have to be required to do those things. It is what they will do. They will do much more of it if the government will stop leeching so much of their money out of them. I am not saying they deserve more money. I am saying they deserve to keep more of the money that is theirs in the first place.

Make sure you tell/remind me what you think of grade redistribution, in terms of academic effectiveness. What extent of it do you think would make classes learn more overall and have the highest possible average GPA's. Make sure you don't dodge this part.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

GDP by itself is the measure of the overall wealth of a nation. GDP per capita is the measure of average individual wealth. Having fat ass poor people is a measure of how much poor people are stuffing their faces with Big Macs and milk shakes. Obesity is not a result of malnutrition. Being abnormally skinny is a result of malnutrition. Being obese is a result of bad nutrition and face stuffing.

GDP and GDP per capia both measure the wealth of a country, though in different ways. Which one is appropriate depends on the discussion, and I just don't see GDP being all that relevant in this one.
Malnutrition does not mean you eat too little (though that is one form of malnutrution), simply that you're not getting the correct nutrients. But all of this is just semantics, and not really relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then, what you are saying is that we should not teach people from an early age not to be successful. We should instead take away people's success after they achieve it. Is that accurate? People are being too successful, and that is frustrating the unsuccessful, and the result is mass murders with guns? I disagree. I think everybody should be encouraged to succeed if that is what they want. We have major access to that in the United States. The opportunities are there for those who want to use them.

I don't think the success of the successful has the first thing to do with psychopathic killing sprees. It has a lot to do with class envy and dysfunctional politics, but not psycho wig outs with guns. Bullying in schools seems to be the major factor behind school shootings, and that is a huge problem that needs to be fixed in a hurry. I think it is the main factor behind most psychopathic rampages. Envy is not enough. It takes a history of abuse or a major mental illness.

No, that is not what I was saying. That is explicitly not what I was saying.
The successful will still be successful. It's just that instead of being 8 times better off than the average dude, maybe they could just be 4 times better off? It's not like they're lacking in either case. The point isn't to discourage people from working hard towards success. The problem is that the differences are too great, and that in the US social mobility is relativity low (meaning that your success is highly dependant on your parents being successful, compared to for instance Denmark). Another problem with the US is that wealth tends to accumulate with few individuals, effectively bleeding the rest of the population while they're getting insanely rich.

Now you may disagree with the causal relationship between economical (thus social) inequality and problems like violence, but the statistics confirm that there is a correlation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It cannot be guaranteed that the next person who breaks into my house or threatens me otherwise will not have a gun, so I deserve the right to have a gun to protect myself in case he does have one, in which case he might try to use it. I deserve to have a gun in case somebody tries to attack me with his fists. It's like a seatbelt as far as I am concerned. The burglars, car jackers, muggers, bullies, or whoever else it is might require more than a flashlight to be stopped. The government has no business telling me I can't have a gun. I would also need a guarantee that my government will never go 1984 on me, but it already has. I want my gun, I need my gun, and I am keeping my gun.

edit: Missed this one when part of my post got deleted by accudent.
Personally keeping a gun around for "personal safety" sounds somewhat akin to keeping an anti-personnel around "just in case". But the situation in the US is much more difficult since everyone and her grandmother owns a gun.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is true that accidents happen in homes, but that is a result of lack of education and common gun sense. There are zero cases of that happening in the houses of NRA members. There have also been lots of incidents of kids getting hurt and/or killed by stoves, chemical products under the kitchen sink, cars going down the road, stairs, and other things that it would be unjust to ban.

I don't see how any of this is an argument against what I said.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You do realize your suggestions would not have stopped the shooting in Connecticut right?

Are you asking me this?
Perhaps it wouldn't have, but it would cut down on incidents in general. I mean, it's just good sense to store your gun some place safe, isn't it?

Originally Posted by ZeraCook

I Can get Illegal guns in Montana, A place where gun laws are not at all strict, a place where gun crimes is not very high, and I used to be able to get Illegal guns if I wanted to. Its because I know Criminals, Reason being that Marijuana is Illegal and I like to smoke. Pretty sure if the gun laws came along my Criminal associates wouldn't be just stop selling guns.

Also pretty sure someone who went of the deep end wouldn't just not kill if they didn't have access to a gun.

There are such things as crimes of opportunity.

You'd be able to kill a lot less people with a kitchen knife than with a handgun. Just saying.

As far as gun control goes... I wouldn't know where to legally buy a gun here in BC, Canada. No one I know does. I've never seen a gun shop, heard anyone mention one, or ever even thought we might even have one. I honestly wouldn't know where to go unless I searched it up online. But, I know how to get them illegally. Everyone does. I overheard a guy talking about the gun he had tucked in his pants during our chef training/cafeteria class during my senior year of high school ffs. The kid even showed it to two of his friends while we were washing dishes and I caught a glimpse of the thing. In hindsight I probably should have mentioned it to school officials but I wasn't worried about a school shooting, it was more of a status thing for him (the kids in our city tend to idolize the whole gangster/thug thing).

My point though, is that a kid was able to easily get a gun illegally. My cousin's neighbor (17 years old) had one as well... he bought it at a bus stop. It doesn't matter if it's illegal - if people want it, they're going to get it. They're readily available on the black market, banning them won't change shit. I could buy one by the end of today if I wanted (I don't) and no law would be able to stop me, or anyone else for that matter. Marijuana's illegal too, but I buy that more often than I buy pop and chips...
-----
http://theconservati...nspiracies-yet/

Also:

And the father of the mall shooter last week is supposed to testify before Congress re: the LIBOR scandal
The father of Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza, Peter Lanza, was the tax director for General Electric, a corporation that paid -0- taxes on 14.2 billion dollars in profits last year. According to Fabian4Liberty, Peter Lanza was scheduled to testify in the ongoing global LIBOR scandal. In what could only be described an amazing coincidence, the father of Colorado Batman shooter James Holmes, Robert Holmes, was also a LIBOR witness in his position with FICO. According to the link at FICO, Robert Holmes was a ‘Fraud Scientist’.
From Fabain4Liberty:
The father of Newtown Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza who is a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial. The father of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes is Robert Holmes, the lead scientist for the credit score company FICO. Both men were to testify before the US Sentate in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. The London Interbank Offered Rate, known as Libor, is the average interest rate at which banks can borrow from each other. 16 international banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. HSBC has already been fined $1.9 billion and three of their low level traders arrested.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a motive and a link. This coincidence is impossible to overlook. Two mass shootings connected to LIBOR.
http://seemydeath.co...l#axzz2F7h9jGsE

I know what you're thinking but it's worth a mention. Conspiracy theories should always be taken with a grain of salt, but in this case, I think this is worth being a little mindful of. This LIBOR scandal connection (if it's true) can't be mere coincidence, especially when you consider what's at stake if any of these witnesses testify in court. A lot of people involved in the scandal stand to face some serious consequences if they're found guilty - and if there's anything corrupt rich people do when they've got their backs against the wall, it's do whatever they can to save their asses.

Why shootings though? Idk. But the mother was also a doomsday prepper, and the feds haven't exactly been letting those "paranoid nutjobs" go on prepping without taking special interest as of late. Again, no clue how this all ties in (if it even does at all), but it's definitely a peculiar case.

Originally Posted by khh

GDP and GDP per capia both measure the wealth of a country, though in different ways. Which one is appropriate depends on the discussion, and I just don't see GDP being all that relevant in this one.
Malnutrition does not mean you eat too little (though that is one form of malnutrution), simply that you're not getting the correct nutrients. But all of this is just semantics, and not really relevant to the discussion.

I mentioned GDP alone because there are about 200 countries in the world and we are the wealthiest. Our population number is not mind blowing, so that alone does suggest that poverty is not an issue here. GDP per capita does say more about average wealth, though. Still, the richest countries in the world are not poor per capita. I know that vitamin and mineral deficiencies and so forth qualify as malnutrition, but that doesn't change the fact that it takes excessive calories to get fat.

Originally Posted by khh

No, that is not what I was saying. That is explicitly not what I was saying.
The successful will still be successful. It's just that instead of being 8 times better off than the average dude, maybe they could just be 4 times better off? It's not like they're lacking in either case. The point isn't to discourage people from working hard towards success. The problem is that the differences are too great, and that in the US social mobility is relativity low (meaning that your success is highly dependant on your parents being successful, compared to for instance Denmark). Another problem with the US is that wealth tends to accumulate with few individuals, effectively bleeding the rest of the population while they're getting insanely rich.

Now you may disagree with the causal relationship between economical (thus social) inequality and problems like violence, but the statistics confirm that there is a correlation.

I didn't say you want to take away all of their success, but you do want to take success from them. You want them to be stripped of even more although they are already giving about half of what they make to the government. Should we do that to kids in school? Should A students have to give up some of their points to the less fortunate students? What about when they play sports? Should star athletes have to give up points to others because they're just doing too well and making other kids jealous? This stuff doesn't work, and it is immoral in the first place. All it does is take away from the spirit of achievement. That is horrible for any system. The wealthy do not bleed the system. They make it function. Who do you think is heading the big businesses that provide so many jobs? Do you have any idea how many people are employed because of Bill Gates alone? The Waltons employ even more. They and their zillions of workers spend lots of money in the free market, and that really helps make the market function. It's not exactly assembly line workers who are creating the jobs and spending tons of money.

The statistics show a correlation between success and shootings? Have you already posted a link on that? Remember that correlation does not prove causation. All mass murderers have drunk water, and they all watched cartoons as kids.

Originally Posted by khh

edit: Missed this one when part of my post got deleted by accudent.
Personally keeping a gun around for "personal safety" sounds somewhat akin to keeping an anti-personnel around "just in case". But the situation in the US is much more difficult since everyone and her grandmother owns a gun.

They are not going to get rid of guns here. The "just in case" is realistic. It is realistic even if none of the bad guys have guns, which they will. They would still be violent.

Originally Posted by khh

I don't see how any of this is an argument against what I said.

My point was that going on some rainbow chase to make guns disappear is not the solution to the home gun accident problem. The solution is to provide more gun education. T.V. commercials, brochures, billboard ads for gun education websites, etc.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't say you want to take away all of their success, but you do want to take success from them. You want them to be stripped of even more although they are already giving about half of what they make to the government. Should we do that to kids in school? Should A students have to give up some of their points to the less fortunate students? What about when they play sports? Should star athletes have to give up points to others because they're just doing too well and making other kids jealous? This stuff doesn't work, and it is immoral in the first place. All it does is take away from the spirit of achievement. That is horrible for any system. The wealthy do not bleed the system. They make it function. Who do you think is heading the big businesses that provide so many jobs? Do you have any idea how many people are employed because of Bill Gates alone? The Waltons employ even more. They and their zillions of workers spend lots of money in the free market, and that really helps make the market function. It's not exactly assembly line workers who are creating the jobs and spending tons of money.

Point is that in america it is assumed that life can only be filled through materialistic means and wealth, by having really wealthy and moderately poor people beside each other there will always be tension and jealousy, even if it the wealthy has become rich through fair means.
However in countries with high social and economic equality people are educated to be more content with having enough, they can only compare themselves to others who might earn only twice or thrice as much as them, giving them a realistic reason to strive just for that extra money. The "spirit of achievement" is relative to what there is to achieve.
It would be difficult to change the system in america since it is already in place, and I do agree it would be unfair to remove money from the people who have worked hard for it.
Through education the system can be changed but I highly doubt it will happen any time soon.

Ugh too much text to read. Cuba is not a shit hole, everyone else can blame centralized economic regulation for their shortcomings, except China which has used centralized economic regulation for their benefit (as a nation, not for the benefit of the people). And also your argument against the Soviet Union etc is fallacious, just because I believe in progressive tax doesn't mean I think we should remove capitalism altogether. All the actual examples support my view. Look at Newark, it's climbing out of the recession at record speed, not by falling in line with all this Right to Work BS but by supporting social safety nets.

People are more productive workers if they feel safe. Also stop being a whiny bitch. I really don't feel like reading the rest of your post right now. Besides, if you can't even get the facts right in your first paragraph why should I continue reading through bullshit?

Originally Posted by BossMan

You're missing her point entirely, if this professor has set his mind on killing the principal and students because he had lost his job, then hes going to do it whether a gun is sitting under his desk or he has to get it from a Harlem gangster. Its just political bullshit to shift the blame on something else so left wing lobbyists can get what they want which is strict unneeded gun regulations.

But if he did have a gun in his room it would at least serve as a deterrent for bat-shit crazies from shooting-up his classroom, much like nuclear warheads are currently serving as a deterrent of major wars.

Ok, Lt's keep firearms everywhere including churches, theaters, cinemas, restaurants etc, etc. The problem will be solved once and for all. .

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Point is that in america it is assumed that life can only be filled through materialistic means and wealth, by having really wealthy and moderately poor people beside each other there will always be tension and jealousy, even if it the wealthy has become rich through fair means.
However in countries with high social and economic equality people are educated to be more content with having enough, they can only compare themselves to others who might earn only twice or thrice as much as them, giving them a realistic reason to strive just for that extra money. The "spirit of achievement" is relative to what there is to achieve.
It would be difficult to change the system in america since it is already in place, and I do agree it would be unfair to remove money from the people who have worked hard for it.
Through education the system can be changed but I highly doubt it will happen any time soon.

Those are some good points. I do think that kids need to be taught more about their value as human beings and how wealth is not everything. There will always be pigs, but we need them, just like we need bacteria. I am not a pig myself, but I will never support punishing people for being pigs as long as they don't victimize anybody.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Ugh too much text to read. Cuba is not a shit hole, everyone else can blame centralized economic regulation for their shortcomings, except China which has used centralized economic regulation for their benefit (as a nation, not for the benefit of the people). And also your argument against the Soviet Union etc is fallacious, just because I believe in progressive tax doesn't mean I think we should remove capitalism altogether. All the actual examples support my view. Look at Newark, it's climbing out of the recession at record speed, not by falling in line with all this Right to Work BS but by supporting social safety nets.

People are more productive workers if they feel safe. Also stop being a whiny bitch. I really don't feel like reading the rest of your post right now. Besides, if you can't even get the facts right in your first paragraph why should I continue reading through bullshit?

Hey, when stumped, go ad hominem. It's good exercise for a wimpy ego. Do you need a tissue? I can mail you one, Dr. Self Projection.

I didn't say you said we should get rid of capitalism completely. I made the point that collectivism has failed miserably. I didn't say we should completely ditch safety nets. I think we should have them to some extent. I'm not quite an anarchist. Please demonstrate that Newark's revolutionary new safety nets have been rocketing them out of the recession. I am not going to take your word for it. Sorry. Can you maybe explain how it would happen even in theory? Workers feel safer about what would happen to them if they lost their jobs, so they're working harder? Just a guess. I'll let you explain. Cuba is a shit hole because communism is moronic. China was one, but their capitalism has been making them grow. They are the second richest nation in the world now. I said that earlier, but your pussy got hurt and now you need a tissue.