Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53132515]But the Democrats do care and fight for better healthcare and public schooling.[/QUOTE] As that may be, unfortunately we have Republicans that basically do whatever they can to stop Democrats from improving in anything [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;53132522]what?? [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] then how could it be ready for defense??[/QUOTE] Your posts genuinely confuse me sometimes

[QUOTE=The golden;53132531]"Invest more in healthcare and mental health services" is still only scraping the surface of the problem. Society itself has to be pro-mental health and actually promote, encourage, and sustain a positive attitude towards mental health and seeking help if required. The view on mental health in most of the United States is outright atrocious and tossing more buckos at mental health services isn't going to change that. Will it help? Somewhat, yes - but not to the level people think it will.[/QUOTE] It doesn't help that the conservatives who drop "mental healthcare" without expanding as if it means anything are the same ones who want healthcare to be expensive/hard to access.

I find it [B]so absurd[/B]. I mean, that kid said everybody in this school was expecting this to happen. Schools actively create school shooters and then act all shocked when they do a school shooting. You put your students under this much stress, waking them up inhumanely early, locking them in blank rooms for hours at a time, and give them no help at all even when they ask for it? That plus the terrible home lives that so many children have, and online culture making bullying all-pervasive and unstoppable - schools absolutely fucking bring this on themselves. Not to say that anybody deserves the horror of a school shooting, but the people running these schools are absolutely responsible in part. American schools are broken to the fucking core.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53132522]what?? [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] then how could it be ready for defense??[/QUOTE] This might come as a surprise for you, but it's not a 1 or 0 situation. Yeah a emergency firearm in a close, secure location is going to contribute to your safety - but in general any other kind of firearm you have should be behind lock and key for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53132509]But how? how can it be a defense weapon and still locked up safely?[/QUOTE] Do what I do, take a leaf out of the military's book. Want to have it out of the safe and ready to go? Cool. It better be on your person, or within line-of-sight. Leaving it loaded under the sink or in your car 24/7 is asking for it to get stolen, imo.

Could just ban guns like every civilized country, but America isn't civilized. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("garbage post" - Orkel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Canary;53132644]Could just ban guns like every civilized country, but America isn't civilized.[/QUOTE] Are countries like Canada, Norway, and Switzerland not civilized since they haven't banned guns? It's also mind-boggling that you're unironically using 19th Century racist nomenclature of nation classification that was used to justify Imperialism in a gun debate. Just sayin'.

[QUOTE=Canary;53132644]Could just ban guns like every civilized country, but America isn't civilized.[/QUOTE] I'd argue that a truly civilized country shouldn't have to have guns banned, because guns don't magically create crime.

[QUOTE=Canary;53132644]Could just ban guns like every civilized country, but America isn't civilized.[/QUOTE] civilized countries like brazil?

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53132331]I think some reasonable restrictions would be ok, but the problem is some of the biggest politicians who argue for that side also have a history of presenting things as "common sense restrictions" only for it to turn out that they actually just want a total ban without addressing any of the underlying causes of said violence. Also I disagree with the argument that more guns = more violence or less guns = less violence.[/QUOTE] I do too, but it's so fucking petty that when people try to talk about something people jump down their throats despite them not really saying anything. It's immature, cowardly, and dare I say, undemocratic.

OK, so windows restarted for updates while I was out and lost my post but I'll try to retype what I was doing. I'm gonna use this post to explain a bit about myself and talk about what I think the issues are and how I as a gun owner think we could attack them. So here's the deal. I'm Texan, 22 years old. I have a huge interest in antiques and history in general, and as I started buying up antiques with pocket change at flea markets and stuff I became interested in firearms. I shot my first gun when I was 12 and that got me into it bigtime. Guns were never really big in my family but I developed enough of an interest that my dad had one of his friends show me the ropes. I now own between 13 and 16 firearms, depending on how you define firearm (more on that later). Most of them are antiques, but among them are a modern AR-15 and a newish Colt 1911 copy - and most of a Sten sub machine gun. When I was 13 I was gifted a Marlin Model 60, semi-automatic .22LR, for plinking and when I was 14, I went to my first gun show and used lawn mowing money to buy a gun for the first time (under parental supervision, obviously). The gun I picked out was an 1880s stagecoach shotgun, a break-action with big old hammers on both sides, 12-gauge. Due to its age, [B]the law does not consider it a firearm[/B] even though it is functionally identical to any break action shotgun you can go and buy brand new today. I could have bought that with or without my parents present and nobody could have done anything about it. For Christmas when I was 15 I got a Mosin Nagant M91/30 (Soviet WW2 infantry rifle) from my mother because of my interest in antiques and that fed my interest in guns further. At the time those rifles were about $99 apiece due to huge oversupply. Eventually I was saving up and buying new-old guns every few months. Somewhere along the line I got my dad into shooting and he gifted me a Smith & Wesson MP-15 (a police-model AR-15) for my college graduation gift. I had learned long ago to be a safe and responsible shooter and never personally had any issues with bullying - so in my case I was never a risk factor. However, you're probably starting to see the many legal and seemingly innocuous ways troubled kids can come into possession of a firearm... This is a pretty normal course in the US. Guns are viewed as pretty much inert objects unless they're in the hands of someone who plans to do something bad with them. It's easy to see how parents, [I]thinking their kid would never do that,[/I] wind up giving them as gifts to kids who display an interest in them or leaving them stored in an accessible place. They're fun - they really are a lot of fun. I honestly encourage anyone with a negative opinion of firearms to find a rental range in their country and give them a go to see how they [I]can be safe and fun.[/I] But bad shit happens. There's not enough in place to keep troubled kids from getting guns. I don't know what to do about parents gifting their kids firearms, meaning well, but that's the main way they get into kids' hands. I have some ideas but we'll talk about that in a later section. The main thing I want to highlight is the troubled kid. However they get their hands on the weapon, there's a problem in that the kid is having these thoughts to begin with. [highlight]Do I think it should be harder for kids to get their hands on guns unsupervised? [U]Absolutely.[/U][/highlight] Please don't get me wrong on this. But there is an epidemic-proportion problem in US schools with the mental health of the kids. Counsellors tell suicidal kids to get over it, teachers often don't say anything if a kid's acting funny, they push each other around and put each other in bad places. That is what causes the majority of these school shootings conducted by students. Not the fact that they had access to the gun - again, not that they SHOULD have had access to the gun - but that a growing mental health concern went completely unnoticed or ignored because there's this perception that people should just harden up. So how do we keep guns out of kids' hands? This is a really tricky subject to tackle. It seems obvious: introduce mandatory safe storage laws is the first thing that jumps to mind, but how do you enforce that? The problem you develop when you start looking at enforcing most of these non-confiscation gun control methods is that Americans are really, really, rightfully, paranoid about confiscation. Anything that puts them on a list in a government office somewhere that has their name and address on it and says they own guns compromises their right to bear arms. You may not be in favor of a total ban or confiscation, but a growing movement in the government IS. We have already seen it happen in New York: gun owners getting conned into accepting a registry with the condition that it could never be used for confiscation - only for that law to be changed later and the registry used as a shopping list to collect newly banned guns. So when you start talking about enhanced measures like registries and anything else that creates a centralized list of who owns what guns, Americans start to sweat. It's not that we're intrinsically opposed to those measures, just that they have a history of being used to abuse our trust. So how do you work around that? As a gun owner, I have some ideas. They may not be 100% effective, but I think they would be a good start. Looking at statistics (I would encourage you to do some of your own research on this rather than relying on me to cite sources - but I can probably find some if you'd like me to), we can see a clear link between poverty and firearms crime rates. It is clear that firearms are most heavily involved in gang crime - most shootings in poor areas are gang-related. Firearms enter gang members' hands in a few ways, but very rarely does it involve the actual shooter going to a gun store and buying one. Theft is of course the number one method. They are stolen from cars or houses or anywhere else guns may be kept. The serial numbers are filed off and they're hidden somewhere until the search for the gun itself is over. Then they briefly enter the world of crime - most are used a couple times, then ditched. The other main way is what's called a straw purchase. Most violent gang members already have rap sheets and aren't allowed to buy firearms directly under the current background check laws. But they can have someone who's clean buy the gun for them and hand it off to them. While illegal, there are ways to mask these transactions which are difficult to pin down. What do you do about that? I'd start by making it illegal to leave a firearm unattended in a car sunless it's your licensed conceal carry weapon and you had to leave it there because an establishment doesn't let you bring it in. Most stolen guns are stolen from cars, and while not everyone would comply, that alone would put a dent in new gun thefts. I would crack down on straw purchases and shady private transfers bigtime. Currently, no background check is required for a private transfer. I wouldn't change that particular detail - you could still gift or sell a gun you don't like to a trusted friend or family member - but you had better damn well trust the person you're giving it to, because if they use it in a crime within 7 years, you are charged as an accessory to their crime [I]unless[/I] you performed an optional background check. Intensifying consequences for failing to look into the person you sold a gun to would cut down on those dubious private sales and straw purchases simply because it's not worth the risk at that point. We can let that simmer for a little while and see what kind of effect it has on gang violence while we tackle the next issue: mental health. The bulk of Columbine-style shootings where the killer wanders around with a gun in a crowded place shooting anyone who moves are conducted by mentally ill people who showed signs of being dangerous before they acquired their weapons. This country desperately needs mental health reform anyway but if for nothing else, this is it. We need to attack the social stigma against seeking help, we need to establish strong public programs for GIVING help, we need to educate kids on the real impact of this stuff and train teachers and other school staff to look for the signs of a troubled kid and talk to them before they do something stupid. This is a deeply complicated issue but it is absolutely a huge one and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I don't really have a clear plan for what kind of legislature could pull it off, but that's the issue in my mind and I think that's what needs to be gone after. What my argument boils down to is that gun violence is a symptom of a much deeper problem in this country and I hate the far right for blocking discussion of those problems and I hate the far left for trying to attack the symptoms without trying to see the root causes. Uh, I hope I covered everything, let me know if you've got any questions about me or my thoughts on this or that thing. I really do wanna talk policy on this. I want to show you gun owners aren't all nuts, so help me talk to you. What do you want to know? Also, a few more posts inbound probably, I'm gonna reply to some other posts from around the thread as I catch up.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132671]OK, .[/QUOTE] your comment on private transfers is something I've thought about in the past, but it falls flat in one simple aspect. what happens when you sell a gun to someone you trust, who later on sells it to someone you don't trust, without any background check at any stage? what if that person uses it in a crime? your name is the only one on the paper trail, and you're the one who gets the accessory charge. on that aspect, your suggestion doesn't work, but neither does requiring transfers for all private sales because that transfer fee keeps the gun out of the hands of the poor.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132671]But bad shit happens. There's not enough in place to keep troubled kids from getting guns. I don't know what to do about parents gifting their kids firearms, meaning well, but that's the main way they get into kids' hands. I have some ideas but we'll talk about that in a later section.[/QUOTE] This shit right here. My dad's owned guns longer than I've been alive, I never had access to them outside of his supervision until I started purchasing my own at the age of 21. He kept them locked up. Kids don't have the best judgement or decision-making skills, no fucking way would I trust one with unsupervised access. I'm iffy about most adults too, but that's another discussion.

Could motive had to do with the gangster St. Valentine's Day massacre?

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53131929]Right off the bat, here's two good points that have shown to work pretty much everywhere in the world: - Greater focus on mental health, a better support system for those who are vulnerable and prone to cause these kinds of incidents. - Stricter gun control to prevent people with mental instabilities or harmful ideologies attaining guns. I have to say it's pretty ludicrous to ask someone else for the solution, though. Instead of actively working together to fix the problem you just yell "well what's the solution then?!!" and flair your arms in the air, as if there was nothing you could do. Lazy.[/QUOTE] I touched on both of these in my above post but we can elaborate on that in further discourse if you'd like. To sum up my thoughts on both: - Absolutely; god, yes, much needed and long overdue and unfortunately while orange in chief and his circus are holding office it's not going to happen through legislature. - Again see above for what "stricter gun control" could entail (and below, too) [QUOTE=Panthereye;53131946]This whole thing is inherently a political issue, though... Why are guns so easily accessible to the average American high schooler?[/quote] Touched on that above. They're easy to find and there's really not a lot in the way of obtaining them. Even if you can't get one legally it's not difficult for a child to steal one from their parents. [quote]Why is mental health not taken more seriously by school and government officials?[/quote] Macho bullshit in US culture - "tough it out, squirt. When I was your age we hit each other with baseball bats for fun! Now don't come to me with this again or you're both suspended." [quote]Why do we let these issues build up until they happen again?[/quote] Legislature on this subject is usually one extreme or the other so both sides put the brakes on each others' bills. Stupid bullshit caused by the growing party divide, acceptance of extremist viewpoints, and the legality of buying votes. [quote]Why do so many people choose to use the "don't bring politics into this, people have died" rhetoric? We can't have solutions to these problems if we don't discuss it, and discussion such as this (guns, death) is always, [b]always[/b] going to be political.[/quote] Like I said above, people prefer to put the brakes on this discussion entirely instead of allowing it to go through because historically it leads to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act]shit[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban]like[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act]this.[/url] Laws like this create incriminating red tape that gets more innocent people in trouble for inane shit than catches actual malicious behavior. [quote]How do we prevent more innocent deaths? We will have to use preventative measures, not reactionary. But we have to discuss them first.[/quote] I hope the political climate stabilizes enough to allow that. [QUOTE=TraderRager;53131961]Okay, I'm imagining. I propose a bill where the nation offers a mass buyback all semi-automatic firearms and institutes more thorough background checks and stronger punishments for those who allow firearms to end up in the possession of unlicensed users. It also closes the Gun Show loophole. Use of any firearm capable of semi-automatic fire (including pistols) requires a different license then more traditional hunting weapons (Bolt, Lever, Pump, and Break-action type firearms). Continued ownership of the before mentioned semi-automatic firearms is a felony, but you have 12 months from when the legislation is passed to sell them or get the new license.[/QUOTE] So I guess you're suggesting a license for semi-automatic weapons. See above for why that makes people squirm. It's not a bad idea on its own - if I didn't think it'd be abused, I'd be in favor of a licensing system and mandatory safety courses (federally funded) for ALL firearms, period. But gun licenses have a long history of being used against law abiding citizens. WRT the gun show loophole a few other posters mentioned, it's kind of a myth and kind of not. Yes, you can, as a private seller, go to the gun show, buy a booth, and sell parts of your personal collection... for what you paid for them. If the ATF catches wind that you're regularly going to these things and making a profit on guns, they will consider you an unlicensed dealer and throw you in supermax for 20 years and you will never see a firearm again in your life. The only loophole there really is is with pre-1900s firearms, which are not considered firearms by law. But you would probably have to dig deep to find the last time someone was murdered with an actual antique cap & ball revolver or something of that nature. More to come [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;53132695]your comment on private transfers is something I've thought about in the past, but it falls flat in one simple aspect. what happens when you sell a gun to someone you trust, who later on sells it to someone you don't trust, without any background check at any stage? what if that person uses it in a crime? your name is the only one on the paper trail, and you're the one who gets the accessory charge. on that aspect, your suggestion doesn't work, but neither does requiring transfers for all private sales because that transfer fee keeps the gun out of the hands of the poor.[/QUOTE] Well, if you did what you were supposed to do, you'd still have a record (bill of sale) of your selling it to the next guy. But even if you didn't have that paperwork I imagine in a legal setting there'd be a very thorough questioning process. You say you sold it to the next guy - he'll be taken apart and put back together under a spotlight. But yeah, it's not perfect. I think it's better than what we've got for sure either way. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;53132006]No? In AZ you can go to a gun show and buy a gun without any licensing or paperwork assuming it's a private seller.[/QUOTE] Just quoting this in case you're watching the ticker. Check above. [QUOTE=TraderRager;53132019]R: "This isn't about gun control, it's a about mental health!" D: "Okay, I agree mental health is a problem. Maybe we should put more money into it and reestablish our countries shattered mental health system so people in need can get help." R: "..." D: *Proposes legislation to help with Mental Health Care* R: "Damn socialist with your free health care, we need to spend that money on the military! What do you want to spend money on crazy people for anyways?"[/QUOTE] To be completely objective, democrats don't exactly seek real compromise on this issue, either. Since 1934, there have been constant pointless laws passed gradually making it more and more of a pain in the ass to own and use firearms. We STILL have this problem because those laws tend to only affect the people who follow them in the first place, because at the end of the day, if you just go and steal the fucking thing, you skip every license, background check, proposed psych eval, training course, and so on - and if you're willing to murder, you're willing to steal the weapon you'll do it with. Good compromise would be seeking legislature like I outlined above while also lifting some of the old arbitrary restrictions on things like barrel length. Have you ever heard of an "Any Other Weapon?" NFA '34 created so much weird bullshit like that a multi billion dollar federal agency had to be created to both interpret specifically what the fuck that law was talking about [I]and[/I] enforce it because nobody else wanted to. [QUOTE=TraderRager;53132047]In all but 19 states you can sell a firearm without a background check or waiting period, but FLL licensed gun stores require these things. Some gun show booths might comply with FLL, but many of them do not at all and can legally sell firearms without even seeing an ID.[/QUOTE] I dunno what any of this means but you should really do some research because I don't think you do either. Sorry if that sounds mean but this post not only didn't make sense but I can't make it make sense without it being incorrect :v: [QUOTE=srobins;53132066]Says who? You? You can argue ratios all you want, the fact of the matter is that in some states you can in fact buy unlicensed weapons with no background checks from private sellers. I would argue from experience that the number of private sellers at gun shows goes far beyond "very few", also.[/QUOTE] It just isn't economical to try and make a business out of unlicensed (felony) gun sales at gun shows. It's fine to go once or twice to burn off some excess guns if you're a bigtime collector but you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A PROFIT ON THEM and if you're doing it regularly you WILL go down because the ATF vets EVERYBODY at those things. Hope I touched on most of the arguments brought up so far, if you want me to give special attention to anything tug on my sleeve, gonna play some Kingdom Come and check back in a bit. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] One more thing, a safe law would be fine on one condition - the government subsidized the safes at least mostly. Gun safes are really expensive and mandating them would lock a lot of the people who need guns most out of owning them. It'd be technically hard to enforce but if the fed was offering financial assistance with purchasing them most people would use them 'cuz why not.

If I owned a large gun store in America, I would have a 50% sale on everything every day school shootings happen. Sure, it would probably make people very angry, but maybe it would add to inspiring some change in the politics that lead to these events.

I find it so exhausting how whenever a shooting happens nearly the only thing anyone is willing to focus on is the legalities of actually owning a firearm. Its always the same each time and it always ends the same and in the end does nothing to further actually solving the problem.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53132490]it's also important to note that public schools don't give two shits about students. Get bullied? Take it or be punished. Approach an adult with concerns about mental health? Prepare to be forcefully ignored or even punished. Also, be prepared to be put under more stress than most universities put you through. Most teachers don't care, and the ones that do don't have the resources to be able to do anything. They're overworked and overpaid. Inner city public schools are hotbeds of clique violence. American public schools are social pressure cookers and some people just snap under the pressure. Schools need to stop literally manufacturing their own shootings. Because that's what they're doing.[/QUOTE] Perhaps, but I'll still lay a shit ton of blame on the parents for not paying enough attention to their fucking kid to see this coming to a head...

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53132762]I find it so exhausting how whenever a shooting happens nearly the only thing anyone is willing to focus on is the legalities of actually owning a firearm. Its always the same each time and it always ends the same and in the end does nothing to further actually solving the problem.[/QUOTE] Because everyone just stonewalls the reality that this really doesn't happen other places

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53132805]It's also hard as fuck to change an entire society. No one wants to go through the effort because politicians are short-sighted.[/QUOTE] It's also hard as fuck to remove guns from the hands of criminals, so instead we just target civilian owners.

FIREARMS/MENTAL HEALTH ARE BARELY THE ISSUE. Schools in the U.S. operate like fucking prisons and lend themselves to this outcast behavior. The kid had issues in school, and so he gets expelled and fucked over academically?? Schools operate only to make as much money and best reviews possible, instead of to serve every students developmental and instructional needs.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53132443]your age limits are a joke, straw purchases are done all day everyday everywhere and you know it.[/QUOTE] This is a big part of why new firearm restrictions are misguided IMO, because laws that aren't enforced are worthless. The Obama administration specifically directed the DoJ not to prosecute straw purchases and they don't have the funding to start now, and the ATF doesn't have the resources to investigate sellers who knowingly facilitate straw purchase either. We already have the ability to dramatically reduce the availability of firearms to the gangs that represent the overwhelming majority of gun crime, but we don't. But that's not even the problem in question with mass shootings. They didn't get their guns through straw purchase. It's a totally different problem where the only commonality is the presence of a gun. Statistically the greatest source of firearm deaths is suicide, then the greatest source of homicides is gang violence, and mass shootings are way down the list- but people propose legislation and cite statistics like they're completely interchangeable. I want to solve the problem, but the narrow attitude Democrats have in going after particular flavors of firearm isn't productive. That's not to say that Republicans are doing any better, but it's not a valuable debate if neither side is addressing statistically-relevant factors in gun violence.

[QUOTE=Hilton;53132815]FIREARMS/MENTAL HEALTH ARE BARELY THE ISSUE. Schools in the U.S. operate like fucking prisons and lend themselves to this outcast behavior. The kid had issues in school, and so he gets expelled and fucked over academically?? Schools operate only to make as much money and best reviews possible, instead of to serve every students developmental and instructional needs.[/QUOTE] It's ridiculous that zero tolerance has lasted this long. Remove it, and start putting educational reform. The longer any Republican President is in the office, however, the longer it'll take for there to be any actual change. No Republican will ever want to change the public school system positively.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53132800]Because everyone just stonewalls the reality that this really doesn't happen other places[/QUOTE] oh wow how many school shootings didn't happen then off the top of my head there was the ones in mexico and brazil last year, the la loche shootings, that one in sweden in late 2015, the winnenden school shooting, and lets not forget the 2 or 3 times a year some jackass with a knife kills a bunch of kindergartners in china militant groups storming schools is a shockingly common occurrence outside of the united states too, we've got the beslan school siege, the peshawar massacre, the ma'alot massacre, the garissa college attack, so on and so forth

[QUOTE=butre;53132827]oh wow how many school shootings didn't happen then off the top of my head there was the ones in mexico and brazil last year, the la loche shootings, that one in sweden in late 2015, the winnenden school shooting, and lets not forget the 2 or 3 times a year some jackass with a knife kills a bunch of kindergartners in china militant groups storming schools is a shockingly common occurrence outside of the united states too, we've got the beslan school siege, the peshawar massacre, the ma'alot massacre, the garissa college attack, so on and so forth[/QUOTE] To be fair i think he's referring to the frequency.

The solution is apparently BAN GUNS or improve mental health services Why not both?

[QUOTE=butre;53132827]oh wow how many school shootings didn't happen then off the top of my head there was the ones in mexico and brazil last year, the la loche shootings, that one in sweden in late 2015, the winnenden school shooting, and lets not forget the 2 or 3 times a year some jackass with a knife kills a bunch of kindergartners in china militant groups storming schools is a shockingly common occurrence outside of the united states too, we've got the beslan school siege, the peshawar massacre, the ma'alot massacre, the garissa college attack, so on and so forth[/QUOTE] I can't answer for Mexico and Brazil, but bringing up Sweden is a monumentally dumb thing to do when it comes to shootings. Take a gander at our[URL="https://www.bra.se/brott-och-statistik/statistik-utifran-brottstyper/mord-och-drap.html"] yearly statistics[/URL] and peak at firearm-related incidents (which, by the way, the total count in this particular study was 30 instances of firearm-related instances. In a whole year. 30. Thirty. Double-digits). Better yet, just look at [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate"]this handy list[/URL]. The firearm-related incidents we have here are usually related to criminal organisations (or just between criminal to criminal in general) and don't affect the average Svensson walking around town. But hey, keep talking shit and keep using anecdotal evidence.

[QUOTE=Araknid;53132844]The solution is apparently BAN GUNS or improve mental health services Why not both?[/QUOTE] Improving mental health care & schools in general is most important. It's difficult to just ban guns, especially in the current political climate. Unless you want half the country to start defending themselves from the government taking their guns away, it might be an idea to deal with why they distrust the government so much before going to such measures.

17 people died at the high school I went to today. My fucking mind is blown

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53132850]I can't answer for Mexico and Brazil, but bringing up Sweden is a monumentally dumb thing to do when it comes to shootings. Take a gander at our[URL="https://www.bra.se/brott-och-statistik/statistik-utifran-brottstyper/mord-och-drap.html"] yearly statistics[/URL] and peak at firearm-related incidents (which, by the way, the total count in this particular study was 30 instances of firearm-related instances. In a whole year. 30. Thirty. Double-digits). Better yet, just look at [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate"]this handy list[/URL]. The firearm-related incidents we have here are usually related to criminal organisations (or just between criminal to criminal in general) and don't affect the average Svensson walking around town. But hey, keep talking shit and keep using anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE] you do realize I'm talking about specific incidences right?