[QUOTE=BCell;38887682]we should stop the glamorization of mass murderers. Why is it the killers are not called terrorists? Terrorism doesn't requires a bomb but instilling terror.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we're glamorising them, but we are focusing on them a lot, making them household names and forcing their pictures to be plastered everywhere for weeks
I agree with you OP--the media practically makes celebrities out of people who perform these horrendous acts. This enables other psychopathic nobodies to do the same things, because it's their last-ditch effort to be remembered by people. Remember the 2007 mall shooting in Omaha Nebraska? The shooter Robert Hawkins even wrote in his suicide note "just think, I'm gonna be fuckin' famous". And guess what, he is now! People remember him! Gee how'd that happen? How do I know this random person?
Obama as we speak is calling for a ban on the sale of "military style rifles" similar to that of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. But here's the thing people don't realize about the 94' ban--the FAWB didn't stop the sales of "assault weapons", rather these "assault weapons" were modified around the ban. Pistol grips were replaced with rifle stocks, thumbhole stocks etc etc to give them a more sporty look. Check out this AR-15 for example:
[IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/picture-1-16.png[/IMG]
Furthermore, have a look at this AKM--it is mine, that's me holding it. My dad's friend fell on some hard times and ended giving it to me after I asked him if I could borrow it. He purchased it in 1997, DURING THE FAWB.
[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/207unf6.jpg[/IMG]
This rifle has a thumbhole stock, and that's what allowed it to be identified as a sporting AK, and therefore sold legally. These bans are worthless and have the effect of a grain of sand when it comes to actually preventing crime. They just affect the law-abiding citizens such as myself. People seem to have forgotten what keeps other countries, let alone our Government from fucking invading us.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
Isoruku Yamamoto
[QUOTE=k4rl;38896828]
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
Isoruku Yamamoto[/QUOTE]
We've gotten to the point where mainland-country invasions are completely useless. Corporates grounds are where we fight our battles. The economy is what differentiates the winners from the losers.
I don't think it's the media that's the main factor. I think it's just that some people are just plain insane and will do insane things.
The real tamable issue, I think, comes from how easy it is to access a gun in America. The Sandy Hook murderer's mother was a gun enthusiast, was she not? All he had to do was steal a couple of guns from her and go be insane at a school. Maybe she should have locked them away but people are people and they forget things. Why run the risk of that happening? For contrast, on the same day, in China a batshit insane guy took a knife and went on a rampage with it. 0 people died from that incident.
Crazy people are going to do crazy things but if you put something as deadly as a gun into the equation, people are going to die.
Of course it's not the gun's fault, it's the people using them and the fact that they are insane - you've got an equation for massacre right there with that combination, along with a load of other factors - and the way to stop this shit is to take one part away. Surely the logical answer is to take out guns. It's a lot easier than preventing people from being insane - you can't always tell when they are and when you can, you can't just lock them up. That's a horrific breach of human rights. Trouble is, you generally can't treat it, either. So it's guns you take away, right?
The NRA argued that if you illegalized guns completely, these people would find other means of getting them. That's a stupid argument. At the very least, less of these events would happen and, if it's possible to save that many lives and prevent, at the very least, some of these tragedies, surely it would be worth it. Most of these things happen in a fit of rage and often, these people are only able to do it because it's just so easy to get the guns. Just look at everywhere else. Shootings happen so rarely in a country like Britain. It's possible to get guns through the black market, sure, but look at the difference the illegalization of trading guns has made.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there are loads of factors relating to these sorts of things and what you outline in the OP may be one of them, but the consistent one is the availability of guns and it's probably the easiest and most effective to fix. You can take out the mass media coverage, sure, but these people are still sadistic and insane. If you take away guns, none of the other factors matter. Someone could take a knife into a school if they want to do something like this, sure, but the death toll would be so much smaller and anything you can do to reduce it simply must be worth it for the sake of everyone involved.
[QUOTE=k4rl;38896828]
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
Isoruku Yamamoto[/QUOTE]
First off: [URL]http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/[/URL]
Second off: What keeps countries from invading us is no longer our military power, it is our economic might. Countries recognize that we have become interdependent on one another. Same thing that keeps China from clashing with Japan, Soko, or the U.S. over the Senkaku Islands. Same thing keeping them from invading Taiwan.
Third off: Just because weapon manufactures build shit to get around the ban does not PROVE that we don't need action to challenge gun use/ownership in the U.S., it just means we need more EFFECTIVE measures.
EDIT: Also, on the subject of the OP.
What is the alternative? We don't report when these terrible tragedies happen? Are we supposed to be kept in the dark when a shooter kills 20 children in an elementary school?
[QUOTE=GunShard;38847064]M
After Columbine, there are some mass murderers that looked up to the Columbine shooters as heroes.
It's confirmed that the Virginia Tech shooter and Jokela school shooter were inspired by the Columbine shooters.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting[/URL]
When a loser feels insignificant, who hates the world and wants revenge on the world.
That loser will shoot up a public place to get instant fame and attention from the media.
Attention is the main reason for shootings.
Being a victim of bullying and access to guns are not the main reasons.
It's confirmed that the Columbine school shooters and Virginia Tech shooter had been bullied during their lives.
Which gave them a reason to hate the world.
Sometimes victims of bullying can become bullies themselves.
There are victims of bullying that commit suicide without harming others.
School shooters are victims of bullying that commit murder then commit suicide.
[/QUOTE]
OP you need to seriously rethink your knowledge of the Columbine school shooting + the proposed link between Bullying and school violence.
I suggest reading [I]Columbine[/I] by Dave Cullen.... the shooters weren't bullied, they were the bullies.
or this link if you don't wanna read the awesome book.
[URL]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm[/URL]
[QUOTE=Neolk;38919334]First off: [URL]http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/[/URL]
Second off: What keeps countries from invading us is no longer our military power, it is our economic might. Countries recognize that we have become interdependent on one another. Same thing that keeps China from clashing with Japan, Soko, or the U.S. over the Senkaku Islands. Same thing keeping them from invading Taiwan.
Third off: Just because weapon manufactures build shit to get around the ban does not PROVE that we don't need action to challenge gun use/ownership in the U.S., it just means we need more EFFECTIVE measures.
EDIT: Also, on the subject of the OP.
What is the alternative? We don't report when these terrible tragedies happen? Are we supposed to be kept in the dark when a shooter kills 20 children in an elementary school?
OP you need to seriously rethink your knowledge of the Columbine school shooting + the proposed link between Bullying and school violence.
I suggest reading [I]Columbine[/I] by Dave Cullen.... the shooters weren't bullied, they were the bullies.
or this link if you don't wanna read the awesome book.
[URL]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]
I don't think the link between bullying and school violence matters as much as the link between mental illness and school violence does.
If you are a bully, you are someone that gets off by making others feel bad. This is a mental illness.
If you are being bullied, you are someone that can be potentially pushed to the point of depression, suicide; mental illness.
Both mentalities, under certain conditions, could cause either to resort to violence.
Guns aren't the problem? School shootings wouldn't be happening then. The fact of the matter is, when someone ends up with a gun in their hand and knows they could grab it whenever they wanted to, it makes them more likely to entertain their darker thoughts and shoot others. If the gun wasn't in their hand in the first place, it's likely most school shootings wouldn't happen.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39001676]Guns aren't the problem? School shootings wouldn't be happening then. [B]The fact of the matter is, when someone ends up with a gun in their hand and knows they could grab it whenever they wanted to, it makes them more likely to entertain their darker thoughts and shoot others.[/B] If the gun wasn't in their hand in the first place, it's likely most school shootings wouldn't happen.[/QUOTE]
The bolded part is a very dangerous line of reasoning.
It assumes that a gun owner is more likely to do something bad just for being a gun owner, it is placing guilt on a person for no actual reason.
It is a similar line of reasoning to the argument that video games cause violence.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39001676]Guns aren't the problem? School shootings wouldn't be happening then. The fact of the matter is, when someone ends up with a gun in their hand and knows they could grab it whenever they wanted to, it makes them more likely to entertain their darker thoughts and shoot others. If the gun wasn't in their hand in the first place, it's likely most school shootings wouldn't happen.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right, well partly. School shootings wouldn't be taking place, if there was immense gun control, these deranged individuals would just use a different weapon. I like how you seem to think that banning things that are bad somehow removes people that are bad...
[QUOTE=Cruma;39002277]You're absolutely right, well partly. School shootings wouldn't be taking place, if there was immense gun control, these deranged individuals would just use a different weapon. I like how you seem to think that banning things that are bad somehow removes people that are bad...[/QUOTE]
A bad guy with a knife wouldn't be able to kill 20 people in a few minutes if he only had a knife. I'd rather have insane people with smaller weapons than those with high powered assault rifles.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39002158]The bolded part is a very dangerous line of reasoning.
It assumes that a gun owner is more likely to do something bad just for being a gun owner, it is placing guilt on a person for no actual reason.
It is a similar line of reasoning to the argument that video games cause violence.[/QUOTE]
There are responsible gun owners, the other people they live with might not be as responsible.
There is evidence that video games can lead to more aggressive individuals.
[QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;39002659]A bad guy with a knife wouldn't be able to kill 20 people in a few minutes if he only had a knife. I'd rather have insane people with smaller weapons than those with high powered assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
Do you know what a molotov cocktail is, I mean forget that... just think about how many things are more lethal than a knife, but don't fall into the category of "gun." I mean come on, if you are a mentally deranged person you can just set a building on fire, fairly easily: pour gasoline everywhere, throw a match, it makes a lot of flames, I'm sure in the proper conditions it could cause copious amounts of death. Please don't get into the specifics again like you did with a knife, trust me, if someone is mentally deranged to the point where they don't even value their own life, they can accomplish a bit before being taken down, again, circumstances.
My point still stands, banning guns isn't going to decrease any occurrence of death, it'll still happen, it always will, unless we look into better health care and the effects of social media as a whole, please don't try to disregard media as one tiny generalization, there are far too many factors to take into consideration.
Well, even here in Germany where guns are pretty strictly regulated (especially when compared to the USA) school shootings are happening. Here it's usually blamed on "violent videogames", instead of guns.
Point being that the media and politicians are more likely to blame things which can be easily remedied, at least in the eye of the public, instead of the real problem, like bullying, mental illnesses not being registered/treated properly, et cetera.
There have also been killings with homemade crossbows here a few years back, so guns really are not the problem, it's people being pushed to the point where they feel like they have nothing left to lose, and the media glorifying it, as OP said
Just my two cents
Guns don't kill people, and neither does the media. The shooters are the only ones to be blamed for the shootings, they are all sapient human beings that go on massacres voluntarily and are absolutely aware of the consequenses
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;39004874]Guns don't kill people, and neither does the media. The shooters are the only ones to be blamed for the shootings, they are all sapient human beings that go on massacres voluntarily and are absolutely aware of the consequenses[/QUOTE]
but taking personal responsibility for your actions is just too hard!
[QUOTE=Scar;39003860]Well, even here in Germany where guns are pretty strictly regulated (especially when compared to the USA) school shootings are happening. Here it's usually blamed on "violent videogames", instead of guns.
Point being that the media and politicians are more likely to blame things which can be easily remedied, at least in the eye of the public, instead of the real problem, like bullying, mental illnesses not being registered/treated properly, et cetera.
There have also been killings with homemade crossbows here a few years back, so guns really are not the problem, it's people being pushed to the point where they feel like they have nothing left to lose, and the media glorifying it, as OP said
Just my two cents[/QUOTE]
I wish one country could be the leading example in how bad "control" policies are. Like, I would love to see a country have strict gun control, then strictly control "violent video games" and so on, until they keep making all these ridiculous control measures and still see that people will go on massacres, if they so desire (which history, through any point of history, has shown us some people just want to kill other people), with whatever they can salvage.
Control is the same for every argument, you can't control drugs, if you want drugs bad enough, you will get them. If you want to kill a bunch of people, then you'll find a way to do it, again there will always be conditions for any citizen to cause significant loss of life.
Again, if you want x bad enough, you'll get it, legal or not.
[editline]wat[/editline]
Let's say for the sake of argument that lethal weapons are banned, I guess we're perfectly safe now right? How about one of these deranged individuals steals a car, or their parents/relatives car, and just drives it on a busy sidewalk, as fast as he can, trying to take out as many people as he can. I'm sure that would produce a whole lot more causalities than trying to shoot a place up. But it's not like that matters, because we can obviously just ban cars, then we're really perfectly safe, problem solved, no more reason to ever reply to this thread.
You have to admit, guns are PART of the problem because they give the thing that allows to kill. Now I'm not saying we should take away guns completely. No way America can allow that. Instead we should ban automatic weapons and drum magazines designed to kill millions.
Also little tidbit I read in The Week (Great Magazine for politics); The reason why NRA are always against the banning of guns, any kind of guns, is because they are endorsed to promote guns from manufacturers like Smith and Wesson and Winchester.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39014461]You have to admit, guns are PART of the problem because they give the thing that allows to kill. Now I'm not saying we should take away guns completely. No way America can allow that. Instead we should ban automatic weapons and drum magazines designed to kill millions.
Also little tidbit I read in The Week (Great Magazine for politics); The reason why NRA are always against the banning of guns, any kind of guns, is because they are endorsed to promote guns from manufacturers like Smith and Wesson and Winchester.[/QUOTE]
No guns are not part of the problem, people are the root cause. If it's not guns being a part of the problem then it's going to be whatever other lethal weapon some guy tries to use.
[QUOTE=Cruma;39014540]No guns are not part of the problem, people are the root cause. If it's not guns being a part of the problem then it's going to be whatever other lethal weapon some guy tries to use.[/QUOTE]
People might be the root cause, but they wouldn't be spree killing if they didn't have easy access to a gun in the first place. Nobody is going to be able to spree kill as efficiently with a knife, especially in a public place. Stop trolling.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39014461]You have to admit, guns are PART of the problem because they give the thing that allows to kill. Now I'm not saying we should take away guns completely. No way America can allow that. Instead we should ban automatic weapons and drum magazines designed to kill millions.
Also little tidbit I read in The Week (Great Magazine for politics); The reason why NRA are always against the banning of guns, any kind of guns, is because they are endorsed to promote guns from manufacturers like Smith and Wesson and Winchester.[/QUOTE]
People should take responsibility for themselves. You cannot blame guns for the things you do with them. It's really convenient, sure, but it doesn't work that way
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39014804]People might be the root cause, but they wouldn't be spree killing if they didn't have easy access to a gun in the first place. Nobody is going to be able to spree kill as efficiently with a knife, especially in a public place. Stop trolling.[/QUOTE]
Please refer to my post, it's only two above the one you quoted, I go vaguely go into how it would be fairly easy to wipe out a significant amount of people just by driving a car into an area with a lot of pedestrians, which is basically any street in America near anything that can be considered a city.
I know you like to think that just because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they must obviously be trolling, that however is not the case, in my opinion that term has no place in this subforum. That would be like me calling everyone that keeps saying "guns are the problem" a troll. Subjectivity isn't a hard concept. You're also incorrect in your beliefs, I could say in my opinion, but, quite frankly, it is a fact that guns are not related to these problems, at all, let me add it for you anyways, in my opinion (despite countless research).
I would be happy to hear your side of the argument, but please go read my pasts posts, because I've addressed most of what you are coming up for as an argument. All of them are on this and the last page, it's not that hard.
[QUOTE=Cruma;39014937]Please refer to my post, it's only two above the one you quoted, I go vaguely go into how it would be fairly easy to wipe out a significant amount of people just by driving a car into an area with a lot of pedestrians, which is basically any street in America near anything that can be considered a city.
I know you like to think that just because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they must obviously be trolling, that however is not the case, in my opinion that term has no place in this subforum. That would be like me calling everyone that keeps saying "guns are the problem" a troll. Subjectivity isn't a hard concept. You're also incorrect in your beliefs, I could say in my opinion, but, quite frankly, it is a fact that guns are not related to these problems, at all, let me add it for you anyways, in my opinion (despite countless research).
I would be happy to hear your side of the argument, but please go read my pasts posts, because I've addressed most of what you are coming up for as an argument. All of them are on this and the last page, it's not that hard.[/QUOTE]
Most sidewalks aren't even wide enough for a car to drive on them, let alone have someone going high speed down one in an attempt to kill. They'd have to do when no cars are alongside it (which is never), so your point is moot.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39015171]Most sidewalks aren't even wide enough for a car to drive on them, let alone have someone going high speed down one in an attempt to kill. They'd have to do when no cars are alongside it (which is never), so your point is moot.[/QUOTE]
The example isn't the issue, there are millions of ways to take down multiple people besides using firearms, do I have to comes up with methods until you finally agree with one? Use common sense, I mean do I have to remind you how easy it is to light something on fire?
[QUOTE=Cruma;39015620]The example isn't the issue, there are millions of ways to take down multiple people besides using firearms, do I have to comes up with methods until you finally agree with one? Use common sense, I mean do I have to remind you how easy it is to light something on fire?[/QUOTE]
It's fallacious, mainly because in places where guns are outright banned this doesn't happen. Sure, spree killings do still happen, but they occur much less without guns. Guns ARE a major part of the problem and need to be removed.
[QUOTE=Cruma;39014540]No guns are not part of the problem, people are the root cause. If it's not guns being a part of the problem then it's going to be whatever other lethal weapon some guy tries to use.[/QUOTE]
You are right, but Guns are part of the problem because they are the tools that people can use to do the killing. We aren't ever going to stop killing, but we can limit our losses.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;39014885]People should take responsibility for themselves. You cannot blame guns for the things you do with them. It's really convenient, sure, but it doesn't work that way[/QUOTE]
I was never blaming guns, I was just saying they are the tools that people can use. In fact I agree we should keep guns just not the ones that are designed for mass murder (Such as ARs).
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39019885]You are right, but Guns are part of the problem because they are the tools that people can use to do the killing. We aren't ever going to stop killing, but we can limit our losses.
[/QUOTE]
I'm just going to come right out with it and say that limiting the rights of citizens and patronizing an entire civilian populace is not an acceptable way to "limit your losses." Freedom to chose and freedom to be responsible for yourself and your own conscious are more important than some half-assed scheme to slightly reduce firearm homicides.
Here's an idea, rather than simply trying to remove the means for people to kill each other, why not try to stop people from [I]trying[/I] to kill each other in the first place? There's obviously underlying societal issues that lead to violence and murder, if you want to limit the number of gfirearm homicides than tackle the underlying issues that cause homicides in general.
Criminals will always be able to find means to procure a firearm, they are [I]very[/I] easy to acquire illegally. Domestic incidents make up a pretty small proportion of firearm homicides, and "assault weapons" in domestic homicides an even smaller sub-proportion. Banning an AR rifle does nothing, there's a plethora of equally dangerous semi auto rifles, and even bolt action rifles can be very dangerous in the hand of a trained user; if not even more dangeorus because full sized rifle cartridges have the ability to punch through kevlar vests like tissue paper. Arbitrarily banning one limited sect of semi auto firearms is not going to magically stop (or even reduce) firearm homicides or mass shootings.
[editline]31st December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39014804]People might be the root cause, but they wouldn't be spree killing if they didn't have easy access to a gun in the first place. Nobody is going to be able to spree kill as efficiently with a knife, especially in a public place. Stop trolling.[/QUOTE]
Easy access is totally irrelevant. Mass shootings are almost always pre-meditated and if somebody has the balls to start killing dozens of people then they won't mind spending a few days looking for an illegal firearm
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39038170]
Easy access is totally irrelevant. Mass shootings are almost always pre-meditated and if somebody has the balls to start killing dozens of people then they won't mind spending a few days looking for an illegal firearm[/QUOTE]
An average joe, or disgruntled employee, highschool kid etc, isn't going to have the means to acquire a black market firearm in a society with banned guns. Not without spending a whole pile of cash, which is going to take much more than a few days to muster up.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39038971]An average joe, or disgruntled employee, highschool kid etc, isn't going to have the means to acquire a black market firearm in a society with banned guns. Not without spending a whole pile of cash, which is going to take much more than a few days to muster up.[/QUOTE]
Funny, the Colombine shooters did
If you really wanted to get black market guns it wouldn't be that hard to find them.
Just boot up TOR and look for someone reputable.
[QUOTE=download;39039010]Funny, the Colombine shooters did[/QUOTE]
Straw purchases != straight-up black market arms deals.
Columbine wouldn't have happened if guns were illegal in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.