CQC-Maneuvers.Hawks_Pride said:
Fuck, if you took a classes involving this and someone trys robbing you at gun-point.. Well rude-awaking for them.
School shootings in America (and a wee bit help with homework!)
- Thread starter Cucumber
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fuck, if you took a classes involving this and someone trys robbing you at gun-point.. Well rude-awaking for them.
cleverlymadeup has me convinced. It doesn't seem like a good idea to have citizens arming themselves with the mindset on 'protection'. It's just not common sense to use it for protection.
Frankly, I'd feel safer knowing no one else has guns rather than everyone including me has guns. That'd actually make me more afraid.
Frankly, I'd feel safer knowing no one else has guns rather than everyone including me has guns. That'd actually make me more afraid.
I totally get were you are coming from dude, but im not sure if you get where im coming from. I think guns should be illegal for the same reason that tactical missiles and tanks are illegal. They are DESIGNED; not CAPABLE, but DESIGNED to kill other human beings. Things like fireworks and knives and heroine and other crazy shit are a-okay in my book, because their primary function is not to end a human life.Father Time said:
And you are right in that assumption, alcohol related illnesses kill 30% more Americans than cancer. And you are much more likely to die drinking or driving rather than die drink-driving. True story.
you should kill yours...... oh wrong topic. I would blame our school system in general. It should not be a requirement to attend high school. If kids aren't high school material they just shouldn't go. Those kids should go to work schools to find an occupation. The issue with these unintelligent kids is that they don't do a lot of work and have too much free time. How does this tie in to school shootings. Most bullies aren't that bright. Bullying has helped cause some school shootings. Also the lack of gun control is a problem. The abuse of the right to bear arms which has changed from the right of the people to maintain a militia to the right of gangsters to get their hands on assault rifles. If someone wants a hunting rifle I don't have a problem with that, but their is no practical use for an assault rifle. So the combination of No Child Left Behind and weak gun control combine to make America the hot spot for school shootings.
School shootings usually happen because of neglectful parents, xenophobia, and, as someone said above, the abuse of the right to bear arms. The recent school shootings appear to occur in mostly homogeneous areas, where is mass comformity or mass alienation. These areas are also have a form of a hunting subculture, so gun control in similar areas will do nothing but produce ire from the people living there. Take New York City, for example, or a similar metropolitan area, and without gun control, there would be bodies piling in the streets from the various gangs, riots, etc. The more differences in opinions you find in an area, the more of a need for gun control.
yeah and the pro-gun ppl have even stranger when facts can't back them up they make up fantasy scenarios that have no basis in reality. i have years of crime stats to back me up, you have some sort of pipe dreamNecrophagist said:
i mean by your examples since places like Japan, Canada, the UK and many other countries that have strict gun control, there should be a rampant amount of gun violence, there isn't tho, in Japan it's almost non-existent
but in America where there is little to no gun control the violence with guns is very prevalent, yes in other countries you can still get guns, however by in large most of the crimes are committed by ppl who legally bought those guns
so the fact i have tons of data to back up my claims and you've yet to offer me any solid proof that can be easily proven wrong means i have good ideas and you have well strange thought patterns that make no sense, try my example with a water gun, it is a very valid example of real life, tho if you want more real life, after your friend "robs" you have him shoot you as well cause that's more realistic
also the fact that you have to result to taking pot shots at me proves that you've got nothing
Evidence aside, your assertion that "if you have a gun, and you're robbed you WILL die" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. I will conceded that evidence on gun control can go both ways - there is plenty of evidence supporting gun control, and just as much against it.
But your steady argument throughout the discussion has been that having a gun makes you a target for gun violence. That logic baffles me. And your examples of having a quick-draw with squirtguns is one of the most infantile and silly things I've heard lately. Come on, man. Re-read it and you'll have to face-palm yourself for that one. And the crayon idea. Give me a break.
You may feel strongly about the issue, but that doesn't make you right. We gun advocates have the constitution and common sense on our side. You have silly analogies involving childrens' toys.
But your steady argument throughout the discussion has been that having a gun makes you a target for gun violence. That logic baffles me. And your examples of having a quick-draw with squirtguns is one of the most infantile and silly things I've heard lately. Come on, man. Re-read it and you'll have to face-palm yourself for that one. And the crayon idea. Give me a break.
You may feel strongly about the issue, but that doesn't make you right. We gun advocates have the constitution and common sense on our side. You have silly analogies involving childrens' toys.
He may have a point with those analogies though.
I don't want to get into this argument too much - I've done it too many times before on this board. However, one argument that always comes up seems to be "Nah, I'll just shoot them first because I'm faster, even if they are stood behind me with a gun to my head" - that seems a little daft to me (on the other side of the pond, btw).
Over here, in the UK, we have quite strict regulations on firearms. Yes, the hardline criminals can still access guns - but this makes it far easier for the police to aprehend them, as even carrying a replica gun in public is grounds for arrest - even if no "crime" as such has been commited. Since there is no one carrying "legally", anyone seen with a gun is under suspicion and dealt with by armed response.
So the guns can be taken out of circulation before anyone gets shot. Of course people *do* still get killed, especially with the rise in gang culture in our inner cities, but recent anti-gun campaigns have caused gun-related injuries to fall, though stabbings are on the increase (again, particularly regarding gang fights/revenge killings/turf wars). However, the numbers are very, very low - particularly in comparisson with the rates from the States.
Theoretically, this level of gun control would work in the United States. However, I agree with the point that there are simply *so* many guns in common circulation in the States that getting them all *out* of peoples' hands to begin with is nearly impossible. Plus there would have to be some serious regulation of the borders with Mexico (and perhaps Canada, though I am not convinced that a lot of guns come over the North border).
I don't see how you can argue tighter regulation increases gun crime. There are less guns in circulation, so less can be used. Yes, criminals still have access to them, however the majority of criminals have no *need* for them. If they are breaking into an unarmed household they do not feel the need to go prepared for a shooting (everyone who says having a gun is home defence, if the intruder knows this, they are likely to bring a firearm too - they're not stupid). Gang shootings will still occur, that's almost inevitable (it still happens here). However, regular citizens are less likely to be attacked with firearms.
Over here, I've been mugged - fella walked up behind me and presseda knife into the small of my back. He then got me to turn around, and had a carving knife pressed against my stomach. I simply gave him me wallet and my phone when he asked and off he ran(it was a 7 year old model, so I found it just down the street), went into the bank and cancelled my cards. I lost about £10 cash and my GAME card. Had I tried to to all "ninja" on him (I do ninjitsu and muay thai, so technically I could go "ninja" on him), or had a weapon of my own, I imagine I would have been seriously injured or killed (which for £10 seemed a bit...dumb).
Eh, I dunno - I guess because of the number of weapons already in circulation that any sort of high-level gun control such as we have in the UK is impossible to establish effectually (I'd argue this is what happened in...detroit? Wherever the regulations increased but so did guncrime); however it is nonsensicle to argue that *if* there weren't so many guns in circulation that there would be *more* shootings due to the fact people would be "undefended".
Maybe the Police are better over here too, we don't have the stereotype of fat cops sat in cars eating donuts (I'm sure they would be, but they're too busy with paperwork). This is something I really cannot comment on, since it's a "chicken and egg" thing - is American policing seen as a joke because of the level of crime, or is the level of crime due to ineffectual policing?
Either way, you guys are getting a little too heated about the argument with stats. In other countries with higher gun control, gun murders are lower. This is a fact. It can be concluded (but I know causation =/= correlation) that the control is the reason for the lack of guncrime. In a perfect world this *would* work in the United States, but whether it *will* work in this day and age is doubtful.
What all this has to do with school shootings, I don't know - but I know we've never had one here in the UK as far as I know. Why this is, I can't say - I think it's due to a vastly different cultures due to slightly different morals, which may lead to improved parenting. Or it's simply that such events would happen were the kids able to get hold of a weapon (which according to some pro-Gun lobbyists in the US is so easy to do even here...but it hasn't). So if I were the OP, I'd bring in cultural differentiation between developed Western Nations as a possible cause for the USA being "the danger zone" or whatever the term was. Conversely, you could argue the US *isn't* "the danger hot zone" because although there have been many incidents of school shootings in the US, and virtually none elsewhere (several in Finland are the only others I can bring to mind from recent years), the schools and federal services are much more prepared to deal with such events should they arise - whereas were a child to get hold of a weapon in this country, I'd imagine they could do some serious damage before armed police could be brought in. That could be an interesting spin for the essay, but you'd have a very hard time justifying it - I'd stick to exploring moral relativism and how the relatively new culture of the States compares to the long-established cultures in Europe. You could go further and try to look into Arabic cultures and so forth, since they too have had attacks in schools by children - most usually related to Terror causes and not any sort of bullying or peer pressure.
I don't want to get into this argument too much - I've done it too many times before on this board. However, one argument that always comes up seems to be "Nah, I'll just shoot them first because I'm faster, even if they are stood behind me with a gun to my head" - that seems a little daft to me (on the other side of the pond, btw).
Over here, in the UK, we have quite strict regulations on firearms. Yes, the hardline criminals can still access guns - but this makes it far easier for the police to aprehend them, as even carrying a replica gun in public is grounds for arrest - even if no "crime" as such has been commited. Since there is no one carrying "legally", anyone seen with a gun is under suspicion and dealt with by armed response.
So the guns can be taken out of circulation before anyone gets shot. Of course people *do* still get killed, especially with the rise in gang culture in our inner cities, but recent anti-gun campaigns have caused gun-related injuries to fall, though stabbings are on the increase (again, particularly regarding gang fights/revenge killings/turf wars). However, the numbers are very, very low - particularly in comparisson with the rates from the States.
Theoretically, this level of gun control would work in the United States. However, I agree with the point that there are simply *so* many guns in common circulation in the States that getting them all *out* of peoples' hands to begin with is nearly impossible. Plus there would have to be some serious regulation of the borders with Mexico (and perhaps Canada, though I am not convinced that a lot of guns come over the North border).
I don't see how you can argue tighter regulation increases gun crime. There are less guns in circulation, so less can be used. Yes, criminals still have access to them, however the majority of criminals have no *need* for them. If they are breaking into an unarmed household they do not feel the need to go prepared for a shooting (everyone who says having a gun is home defence, if the intruder knows this, they are likely to bring a firearm too - they're not stupid). Gang shootings will still occur, that's almost inevitable (it still happens here). However, regular citizens are less likely to be attacked with firearms.
Over here, I've been mugged - fella walked up behind me and presseda knife into the small of my back. He then got me to turn around, and had a carving knife pressed against my stomach. I simply gave him me wallet and my phone when he asked and off he ran(it was a 7 year old model, so I found it just down the street), went into the bank and cancelled my cards. I lost about £10 cash and my GAME card. Had I tried to to all "ninja" on him (I do ninjitsu and muay thai, so technically I could go "ninja" on him), or had a weapon of my own, I imagine I would have been seriously injured or killed (which for £10 seemed a bit...dumb).
Eh, I dunno - I guess because of the number of weapons already in circulation that any sort of high-level gun control such as we have in the UK is impossible to establish effectually (I'd argue this is what happened in...detroit? Wherever the regulations increased but so did guncrime); however it is nonsensicle to argue that *if* there weren't so many guns in circulation that there would be *more* shootings due to the fact people would be "undefended".
Maybe the Police are better over here too, we don't have the stereotype of fat cops sat in cars eating donuts (I'm sure they would be, but they're too busy with paperwork). This is something I really cannot comment on, since it's a "chicken and egg" thing - is American policing seen as a joke because of the level of crime, or is the level of crime due to ineffectual policing?
Either way, you guys are getting a little too heated about the argument with stats. In other countries with higher gun control, gun murders are lower. This is a fact. It can be concluded (but I know causation =/= correlation) that the control is the reason for the lack of guncrime. In a perfect world this *would* work in the United States, but whether it *will* work in this day and age is doubtful.
What all this has to do with school shootings, I don't know - but I know we've never had one here in the UK as far as I know. Why this is, I can't say - I think it's due to a vastly different cultures due to slightly different morals, which may lead to improved parenting. Or it's simply that such events would happen were the kids able to get hold of a weapon (which according to some pro-Gun lobbyists in the US is so easy to do even here...but it hasn't). So if I were the OP, I'd bring in cultural differentiation between developed Western Nations as a possible cause for the USA being "the danger zone" or whatever the term was. Conversely, you could argue the US *isn't* "the danger hot zone" because although there have been many incidents of school shootings in the US, and virtually none elsewhere (several in Finland are the only others I can bring to mind from recent years), the schools and federal services are much more prepared to deal with such events should they arise - whereas were a child to get hold of a weapon in this country, I'd imagine they could do some serious damage before armed police could be brought in. That could be an interesting spin for the essay, but you'd have a very hard time justifying it - I'd stick to exploring moral relativism and how the relatively new culture of the States compares to the long-established cultures in Europe. You could go further and try to look into Arabic cultures and so forth, since they too have had attacks in schools by children - most usually related to Terror causes and not any sort of bullying or peer pressure.
actually there's little evidence against it, most of the "evidence" you've provided is not actually good data as it looks at a small picture, ie how many murders by guns as opposed to the difference between the total murders by any method and the murders by guns, which in your example stayed the sameNecrophagist said:
actually here's the logic behind it, it's called survival, in ANY situation if someone has the potential to harm you, ie they have a gun to, you're survival instinct kicks in, which means you SHOOT the person with the gun. it's not flawed logic it's common sense
do you honestly tell me if you were holding up some place and someone pulled a gun on you that you'd NOT shoot them first and go for the unarmed person? cause that's what you're implying
actually ok instead of water guns, use real guns, works exactly the same and it's truthful AND mature AND proves your whole theory of "guns can protect me", they are ONLY protection if you can pull it and fire before the other person does.
do you honestly think a criminal will go "hmmm they might have a gun so i won't rob them" no they will say "well i'm going to shoot his ass and then rob them", thinking the former is just stupid and VERY flawed logic
actually i have common sense and TONS of proof on my side.
and as for calling my analogies childish, they are used by police forces and security organizations to show proof on how guns don't work for personal protection.
the only thing you calling my ideas childish is your refusal to admit that i'm correct and i actually have made a great point and shown how your argument is very flawed and has no basis in reality.
honestly why don't you actually try my suggestion and see how well it pans out for you, if you want to make it more real have your friend point the water gun from behind and then try and pull your gun and shoot him before he can shoot you. you can't and that gun didn't protect you at all, in fact it probly got you killed
frankly there's nothing stopping them from shooting you anyways, they could do this if you had a gun too, chances are if they knew you were armed and wanted to rob you, they'd shoot you first because it's simple survivalJapgat said:
so instead of probably living because you are unarmed and not posing a greater risk to their safety, you are make sure your ass gets shot if you have a gun way to go your just as dead
cleverlymadeup said:
UNLESS YOU SHOOT THEM FIRST, you silly bugger.
I'll leave this bloody argument behind as it's impossible to win with you bloody anti-gun people. It's just frustrating. YOU have the small picture statistics. You will never admit it but sorry, you do. Now read the following web pages, come back here and tell your statistics are totally right and owning a gun will now at least bloody help you in any way shaoe or form.
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.gunfacts.info/
And to the person who said martial arts will definately absolutely save you from any attack ever, consider the following: You are claiming slapping some drugged-up thug around is far more effective than, I unno, PLACING A BULLET IN THEIR BRAIN.
I applaud you, Gardener, for having the sense to know when a fight is unwinnable, in this case due to the obinstancy of the opponent.
(And the guy who mentioned CQC tactics was responding to me when I asked for clev to come up with other defenses to some looney holding you up)
(And the guy who mentioned CQC tactics was responding to me when I asked for clev to come up with other defenses to some looney holding you up)
Ok, answer me this. They walk up behind you (out of a side road, doorway, whatever) and put a gun to your head. You move your arm, they shoot. You ain't going to be quicker than a bullet travelling the few mm from barrel to brain. [film reference]Even an AGENT couldn't do it[/film reference]
Or, are you saying you should walk down every alley, gun out, sweeping the corners? You'll be shot by the coppers pretty quick. Or you'll shoot an innocenct person...hey, maybe that's the problem of the US?
Sorry, but "shoot them first" winds me up. It's not an option. You've been taken by surprise by an armed criminal - they have the drop on you. Even trained soldiers co-operate in situations like that. Being quicker than someone already pointing a gun at you is a myth propegated by hollywood (and not all muggers are drugged up at the moment of the mugging - in fact, they're likely to be on a VERY short fuse because they haven't had their fix, and will likely kill at the slightest provocation).
This is why it's better to co-operate - in the vast, vast majority of cases a mugger attacking you with a weapon isn't intending to kill you - they want to get your money/phone and get the hell out of there as quick as possible, staying around to shoot you afterwards doesn't fit into most muggers' plans. They want your money - it's easier to hand it over than risk getting shot by being an idiot. I mean a tough guy/hero, sorry - I get the two confused so often.
Or, are you saying you should walk down every alley, gun out, sweeping the corners? You'll be shot by the coppers pretty quick. Or you'll shoot an innocenct person...hey, maybe that's the problem of the US?
Sorry, but "shoot them first" winds me up. It's not an option. You've been taken by surprise by an armed criminal - they have the drop on you. Even trained soldiers co-operate in situations like that. Being quicker than someone already pointing a gun at you is a myth propegated by hollywood (and not all muggers are drugged up at the moment of the mugging - in fact, they're likely to be on a VERY short fuse because they haven't had their fix, and will likely kill at the slightest provocation).
This is why it's better to co-operate - in the vast, vast majority of cases a mugger attacking you with a weapon isn't intending to kill you - they want to get your money/phone and get the hell out of there as quick as possible, staying around to shoot you afterwards doesn't fit into most muggers' plans. They want your money - it's easier to hand it over than risk getting shot by being an idiot. I mean a tough guy/hero, sorry - I get the two confused so often.
See, Superbeast hit the nail square on the head. Which I did, as well.
Cooperate, and be alert for absolutely ANY opportunity to turn the tables. If the opportunity arises, you'd better be fast, and you'd better be ballsy. And it's one thing to talk big, but when you're looking down a gun barrel, it's quite another matter.
Cooperate, and be alert for absolutely ANY opportunity to turn the tables. If the opportunity arises, you'd better be fast, and you'd better be ballsy. And it's one thing to talk big, but when you're looking down a gun barrel, it's quite another matter.
right try my thing with the water guns, unless you want to call it childish as well cause you know you won't get the shot off firstThe Gardener said:
see with your plan you'd have to assume they had a gun and therefore be able to shoot them first, HOWEVER if you do that, you are now the criminal and at the very least facing attempted murder as this is NOT self defense
see if someone has a gun pointed at you, there is NO WAY for you to draw it faster then they can shoot you first, like i said try my water gun experiment, film it and post it on youtube to prove me wrong
wow funnily enough some of the "proof" on the one site actually confirmed gun ownership increase chances of homocide or death, so really thank you for proving my point correct
as for my small picture of statistics, well 20+ years of crime stats at my fingertips or at least google's is not a very small picture it's a fairly big and broad canvas that paints a very distinct picture of the landscape that is gun control and how effective it is in decreasing death by firearms rates