School shootings in America (and a wee bit help with homework!)

[Superbeast]

Look, banning guns is not "sacrificing liberty". At least for us.

We do not have the authority to carry weapons ordained by a constitution or decree. In fact, they are banned by law.

However, we (the citizens of UK/Europe/other Western Nations) are not opressed/worried about a government/worried about being attacked with guns and have more freedom and liberty as a part of daily life because of it (because we are free to go about our business with a reduced level of fear). [Or, and I apologise for a small amount of strawman, are you saying my liberty suffers because I do not have the legal standing to go out and murder, rape and pillage? They are also banned by law and I 'would be able to do them otherwise but cannot']

Guns, most specifically Handguns, are lethal weapons. Designed for killing. These "tools" have no place amongst the civilian population (particularly in our country where hunting is also restricted). Why would banning handguns - or at the very least having tight regulation on them and limiting them to sports - be unconstitutional? You would still be able to be in possession of rifles for hunting, overthrowing your government etc - and you would still be "bearing arms" ergo following the words of the constitution.

However, you would have less access to easy-to-conceal firearms and so less would find there way into inappropriate situations (ie, little timmy can't get hold of them and go shoot up his school). According to the Wikipedia list, many guns were puchased legally.

Yes, guns *can* be used in self defence, but the murder rate is higher than the defence rate - think about that. That means many, many more people are being killed by guns than protected by them, thus re-enforcng our point that they are a liability.

Something that you yourself highlighted, and worries me as a non-US resident - the following:

puts the number of times the offender was also armed at 26.2%

That means that in 73.8% of all situations of "defensive gun use" it was against an unarmed attacker - how is that justified (especially when many result in fatalities)? This over-application of force is another thing viewed as incredibly skewed and double-standard. Why do you need to shoot an unarmed man. And, since those stats show that in the majority of cases attackers are indeed unarmed (which, going by other sources of prevalence of armed attacks, the numbers don't quite correlate) then why aren't you guys (USA) carrying non-lethal deterrants, such as stun-guns, pepper sprays and the like?

That's number of guns owned vs. number of citizens not number of gun owners. People can own more than one gun.

Whilst perfectly true, surely it is a worriesome statistic. Even if those 90 guns per 100 people was divided down to 10 guns-per-person (ie a collection) you still have almost DOUBLE the number of firearms than in the UK. And yet more than double the number of fatal shootings per 100,000 of population.


Finally, and I think this debunks the black market theory in relation to accidental/school shootings: In the UK we (according to many US pro-gun lobbyists) have readily available guns on the black market (so how we have less gun crime, goin by your theory that people will target unarmed victims, but I'm digressing) and yet we have had 3 shootings in schools. Ever. Compare that to the number in the US (clue: it's a very big number) When you turn this number into a per-capita comparisson, the US is still way out ahead in terms of school shootings. Yet how is this, if the weapons came off the black market (given such a market exists in the UK) - surely the numbers should be comparable? We have had an "Americanisation" of British culture over the last few years (thus reducing the gap in moral/cultural differentiation), and the glorification of guns. Yet we still don't have anywhere near as many shootings.

++EDIT++

One final thing from your source:

220 million guns in private hands in the U.S., [57] implying that only about 1% of them are used for defensive purposes in any one year

Does that not suggest that they are either 1) uneeded or 2) inneffectual (since your crime rate exceeds the GUS rate, yet the DGU rate is only 1% of total guns in legal circulation).

And I am not exactly enamoured with the source either:

There is no inherent value to knowing the exact number of [Page 169] DGUs any more than there is any value to knowing the exact number of crimes which are committed each year. The estimates in Table 2 are at best only rough approximations, which are probably too low. It is sufficient to conclude from these numbers that DGU is very common, far more common than has been recognized to date by criminologists or policy makers, and certainly far more common than one would think based on any official sources of information.

So essentially, "We don't know the exact figures as we reckon they won't be reported [despite using reported figures for statistical analysis indicates that reports do indeed occur] so we'll just make them up to make guns sound useful"

And why is that a problem? Because they use their *estimated* figures to make DGUs higher than Firearms-related incidents - yet the *estimates* are basically pulled out of their arse and have no factual basis.

I could argue that the murder rate is likely to be astronomically high, as any murder that takes place without a witness is not going to be reported (especially if the victim lives alone, is new in the neighbourhood, doesn't have much contact with the neighbours anyway etc). I've nothing concrete to back it up, but I could make a graph showing guns used to triple the numbers of murders.

Cook has shown that NCVS estimates of gunshot wounds are far too low. [71] Our estimates of DGUs are probably also too low, partly because, unlike the NCVS, our survey did not cover adolescents, the age group most frequently victimized in violence.

So, you (either Father Time or another poster, but someone with a pro-gun viewpoint) earlier blamed the higer gun-related-homicide rates on gang culture - which are primarily adolecent males and not even included in any of these statistics (which means the likleyhood of gun offenses is going to out-strip DGU because of the nature of things like "hits" and classic "drive bys"). Also, the data is rom 1995, and there has been a recent surge in gang culture (even since 2000) which is likely to skew the data (one way or the other, but by the fact that according to another source of yours most gun crime is gang related) towards very high numbers of firearms usage, moreso than DGUs.

 

[Hawks_Pride]

One thing you folks decrying the low number of defensive gun uses have to keep in mind, is that a lot of the actual ones aren't going to be reported.

 

[Straitjacketeering]

well, according to the U.S. constitution, it is every citizens right to bear arms.

I think that when the founders of the U.S. (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, ect.) made the Bill of Rights and that ammendment, they didn't think that it would be a problem. Mainly because most people had a gun back then.

Don't forget back then it took a good ten minutes to reload after every shot.

 

[Mischiviktus]

Answer- Wikipedia
Reason- It has all the school shootings cataloged.
Extra Info- Most of the applicants for committing educational desecration have usually been the low, bottom rung of the losers that natural selection missed. Usually stimulated by completely violent entertainment (everyone just says video games, but other things such as movies, books, music...other influences key in, just saying video games is a scapegoat). Shooting is usually easier than using cutlery, also allows them to self-pwn in case of every situation. Guns are extremely easy to obtain, a shotgun is purchasable at 18 instead of 21, but that's just the legal way. You could also add in that shootings have included non-ethical use of household appliances and chemicals (aka, Anarchist Cook Book).

>Quote>Don't forget back then it took a good ten minutes to reload after every shot.>Quote>

And accuracy was horrible, main source of food was from crops and hunting and self defense was needed. We now have highly accurate weapons that can be targeted using satellites from space, food markets and as for self defense, well, we've the police and I doubt a bunch of bandits break into your house and pillage regularly.

I don't disagree with the amendment, but it needs a bit of editing.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

A 1994 US survey estimated the number of times a gun was used in self-defense to be over 764,000

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

It also puts the number of times the offender was also armed at 26.2%

did you even read that? i'm guessing not cause they said the main survey everyone uses is rather inaccurate and total bunk and not very accurate

Keep reading it then goes on to show the results of DIFFERENT surveys.

actually that came out of the conclusion of the paper

they also go on to say how ppl "felt compelled" to shoot when the outcome was uncertain, which means all those times they didn't need to fire a weapon in order to live thru the ordeal

guess you didn't keep reading like you suggested cause that article doesn't really come out on the side of guns should be used for self defense, it's more of a "guns can be but don't really need to be", so thanks for actually proving my point

You still going to try to argue they can't be used for self-defense?

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080828/NEWS/80828002
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

yeah and lightning can be used as a defense too

If you can document a case where someone has actually used lightning for self-defense that would be great. In the meantime you're just desperately trying to ignore the fact that guns can be used for self-defense.

well hey it's totally possible that lighting could strike someone down while they are robbing another person

there's tons of instanaces where someone "tried to be the hero" and got shot and killed, the reason it's not documented a lot is because if the person is shot and killed without witnesses, the police then call it murder and don't call it a failed attempt at self defense because they don't know

 

[Hawks_Pride]

zombiepandaman's right.

Also, clev, don't stop reading when you see something that appears to support your side. As Father Time pointed out, defensive firearm use seems to be a pretty darn good thing.

 

[Superbeast]

Also please tell me how you got 'we made the figure up to look good' from 'our numbers are too low'

Because that's what it says in the article?

Sure, some DGU's may go unreported, but the article also mentions how a lot of offensive gun uses may go unreported, particularly in poorer areas or between criminals (since they don't want to be in hopsital being asked 'awkward questions'). Not all crime does get reported either - people can be threatened that if they go to the police then they will be dealt with (and if you're attacked by a regular in your area, and suddenly they end up in police custody, the finger is likely to be pointed at you).

Also, I doubt that a lot of DGUs do go unreported - if only for the fear that the bullet/shell case/a random witness who didn't see you being threatened is found at a later time/goes to the polie and you could find yourself arrested. This is actual a plausible reason, and the easiest way to ensure it doesn't happen is to report your DGU (and even if you weren't supposed to be carrying a gun in the area the most you are likely to get is a fine, though your article mentions the police are unlikely to prosecute anyway).

Therefore it is unscientific to simply add a certain percentage (refered to as X) without any proof to back the theory up, and without looking into the level of unreported crime. By adding X to the GDUs without modifying the offenses rate, of course the GDUs will make a gun look like a more useful tool for self defence than it's used offensively.

It wasn't a case of them having too few numbers. If they did, they would have said something along the lines of "Here's the data we have, however we feel it is unrepresentative as more data, particularly investigating unreported DGUs and unreported attacks, so that's what we did anad this is what we have now"; not "We think there are many unreported DGU's so we'll add X amount (X being based on a theory no other criminologist seriously contemplates) to the DGU column and...oh hey, its now greater than the number of offenses, how convenient" (it's almost like it was done on purpose...).

Now, the data also mentions it doesn't include adolescents and young adults. Therefore the data is missing out on a large portion of gun statistics (since gangs are a big problem, and being in one is incredibly violent with many shootings). When you include the potential level of gang-related guncrime (which is mostly perpetuated by those under 25) then suddenly the Offenses will outstrip the number of DGUs once more. Not including such a large portion of data that supports the hypothesis that guns do more damage than they solve is simply biasing the report in favour of DGUs - simply ignoring it is unscientific (the report mentions that the number of hospital administrations is greater than the number of DGUs, but for some reasons uses this to boost the number of DGUs and not the number of assaults, surely it goes both ways here and you would have to add the same amount to both GDUs and Assaults or even, shock horor, investigate as to whether the admitted person was victim or assailant).

Finally, the stats are 14 years old and (in addition to failing to include the youths/gangs in the first place) doesn't take into account the more recent rises in gun crime (so much so that it's now a serious debate among your politicians) and the increase of gangs (which is only likely to get worse with the recession) and their volitility towards each other (as they see new gangs/larger rival gangs as a threat to their turf etc).

There is probably a reason that (as the report mentions) every other criminologist looks into far more than DGUs. The fact the report says that they just add X to the DGUs without looking into how many of the factors affecting X could also impact on the Assaults, and without looking into unreported assaults or the large swathe of data from our generation and gun-romanticising youth culture.

So, going by all of the above, the report doesn't say "We didn't have enough data" but "We made it up to be biased as we didn't look into the factors affecting the counter to our argument"

taken from the study's conclusion

A conclusion from a study full of bias is going to be biased as well (in a former thread on this forum I have also savagely attack pro-legislation sources that were full of BS as well), and if there is reason to doubt the source (which I believe there is due to not including large portions of data that would be contrary to thier hypothesis that DGUs outsrip Assaults with Firearms) then you will have to forgive me for not agreeing with the conclusion.

defensive firearm use seems to be a pretty darn good thing.

Hopefully this post might shed some light on why this appears to be the case? It's sources like these that do more harm than good (why can't there be a genuine independant review/coalition of pro-/anti-legislation criminologists that looks at all the available data in a genuine, unbiased way. It would be a good thing to be submitted to the government, as although it alone wouldn't settle many arguments (since even if it did prove that guns were more harm than good, you have all the issues with whether regulation is constitutional and whether it's possible to actually achieve), it would at least state the facts one way or another (and by being independat/coalition it's hopefully unlikely to do the sorts of statistical manipulation/downright ignoring data that happens when the criminologists are trying to support a hypothesis (the title was pro-gun in nature, and the report is trying to prove this point. A proper report would set a hypothesis and try to disprove it by any and all means. When it can't you have the facts, and if it *can* then you formulate a new hypothesis...then try to disprove that one))

 

[Doug]

Alot of guns. Not alot of control. Alot of nutjobs not getting spotted and helped. Alot of social 'cliches' too that create an increased feeling of being excluded.

Thats my short answer. The UK has strict gun control, but not a good mental health record. Also, fewer cliches (More divided between the wasters who'll end up unemployed drifters and the ones who want to learn than between Goths and Greases and Nerds and etc).

 

[Cucumber]

A bit late of me to write again, but I thank you all for your help. I've written my paper and turned it in, and when I get it graded and returned, I might post it back here on this thread if I don't forget it.

Thanks everyone, again. All the diffrent opinions and facts has made my view on this topic much larger than before. I never doubted that this thread would spark a debate, but a debate this large, was just fantastic.

Feel free to keep discussing =D

 

[kawligia]

In America, guns have been around in great supply since day 1. School shootings have only been an issue for the last 20 or so years. If guns caused schools shootings, we would have had this problem for 200+ years, not 20ish. Something else is at work here. We should be looking at what has changed in the last 20 or 30 years, not scape-goating something that has been around for over 200.

I spot 3 changes around that time:

1) Around the time the shootings began, we enacted laws that prohibited carrying weapons in certain areas.

One one hand, it may have arguably reduced the liklihood of conflicts escalating into gun violence since fewer people will have guns. Sounds good at first glance, but the thing is, that wasn't actually happening. There are hundrends and hundreds of thousands of people who carry guns (with permits). They get into arguments just like the rest of us, but the number of times those scuffles turn into shootings is very very small. People get into arguments and fights at shooting ranges, gun shops, and gun shows but you NEVER hear about an "escalation to violence" in a place like that. If the presence of guns invariably led to shootings, those places would be covered in blood 24/7, but they aren't. We were "fixing" a problem that didn't really exist.

On the other hand, it DID create multiple areas where a person bent on death and destruction can wreak havoc with little to no opposition since everyone else there is unarmed. It was only around this time that we started seeing shootings in those areas such as schools and post offices. When somebody has snapped and is willing to die in order to take others with him, the law is no deterrent. The only deterrent is the possibility of failure. A nutjob may be willing to die to kill others, but even he isn't willing to die without accomplishing his goal of murder-suicide; that would make him a failure even in death. He wouldn't have "shown" anybody but himself! In a gun-free zone, there is absolutely no risk of failure and thus, no reason to hold back.

Note: I am not advocating that children should ever carry weapons. Children are too immature to handle many things such as driving and yes, guns. But a trained teacher or principal (even just one) who kept a weapon (even locked up) could have stopped Columbine or Virginia Tech.

2) The "no spanking" movement. When I was a kid in the early 80s, if I acted up badly enough I got an ass whoopin' just like my parents and grandparents did when they were kids. Sometimes, I would get a "time-out" or T.V. taken away, but that didn't really deter me. Only when I knew I would be looking at a possibly ass whipping did I think twice. That is why my parents quickly gave up on the "no spanking" craze and went back to the old ways. That God they did. If they wouldn't have, I might very well gone down a much different path; I could easily be dead or in jail now.

I think this movement, which started in the early 80s, caused a LOT of kids to grow up with little to no discipline. These parents were often very permissive and their kids were rarely told "No." Its no coincidence to me that 15 years later in the mid-90s that these kids lashed out in a big way when the real world was MUCH harder on them than their parents ever were.

3) "Boys will be boys." That's an old saying, but we seem to have forgotten about it. In the old days (the pre-shooting days) boys were allowed to play rough and play out semi-violent fantasies (like Cowboys and Indians). When they got into fights, a teacher or principal would break it up and work out a fair resolution to the problem that led to the fight. It was also quite common that the two boys would become friends afterwards too. This happened to me once. A kid at my school didn't like me and kept talking shit about me. Eventually, I got fed up with it and kicked his ass. The principal talked with us in is office and we each got detention that afternoon. After that, we got to be good friends until he moved to an out of state college.

But today, boys are NOT allowed to be boys. Playing rough, and playing semi-violent video games (the modern day equivalent to Cowboys and Indians) are deemed "too violent." A fight between them results in instant expulsion of BOTH of them (even if one didn't do anything wrong) and possibly a lawsuit between the parents. There is no longer any rational resolution and "getting over it." Now there is only resentment and vendettas. Compare my story above to what would happen today.

Young boys are forced, very unnaturally, to completely suppress their very nature. Rather than acting out these tendencies in a controlled environment, they are forced to bottle everything up. Its no suprise to me that the less well adjusted wind up exploding in very bad ways when they get older.

 

[wgreer25]

Here is the funny thing about gun control in America, it obviously doesn't work, and they are not taking the right steps to make it work. 85% of gun crimes are committed by people who can't legally buy a gun, so the gun laws only keep guns out "good" people's hands. The solution (or one solution) is simple. Increase the punshment (drasticly) if the crime is commited with a gun. Robbery, 5 years... armed robery 15 years with compensitory damages. Make them not want to use guns in a crime. A gun is tool that can be exploited by criminals, make it not worth it to use one. Which is either by increasing the punishment or by giving everyone a gun to level the field (and that definately doesn't need to happen).

 

[Ratman95]

Guns don't have a mind control device .Almost all the post in this thread boil down to "kids are killing each other because they found a gun " which is BS .Guns are a tool .The reason there are so many school shootings is because of people labeling others as outcast and bullying .Look at all the places that had a spree shooting .They take place in places like schools an malls ,GUN-FREE ZONES .Anyone who think guns are the reason why people kill each other is an idiot .

 

[Danzaivar]

This response made no sense what so ever. I own a gun. So does my brother in law. So does my father in law. So do most of my friends. So far, none of us have been killed. So your argument, "actually i don't have a problem if you have a legitimate usage for a gun, ie hunting, however it will NEVER be useful in personal protection, if you think it will, you WILL be shot and you will die" is so, so wrong. So wrong.

really you think it's useful in personal protection?

ok someone breaks into your house, puts a gun to your head, how is your gun protecting you?

someone walks up to you in an alley and puts a gun to your head and says hand me your money? how is it protecitng you cause once you reach for a gun he shoots you

someone walks into a store and points a gun at your head, how is your gun protecting you now?

someone comes up to your car, points a gun at you and says "get out of your car now", you reach for the glove box and they shoot you.


see it's NOT protecting you, in some instances it's getting your dumb ass shot and killed

I think the idea is if they're so close to you that they have 'a gun to your head' it's a bit too late to do anything no matter what. By the same token however, if someone puts a knife to your throat it's the same situation. On the other hand if you hear someone breaking into your house, and you shout at them 'Get the hell out, i'm armed and not afraid to shoot!' theres a pretty good chance they're going to bolt it, burglars aren't famed for their bravery. It could go either way in that situation but it's (imo) a better scenario than letting someone stick any weapon near your face.

From what I gather through statistics, America has a massive amount of serious crime (Rape and Murder) compared to other countries, but much lower petty crime (Anything else). Think I read something like on average you are 8 times less likely to have your home burgled if you live in America than if you live in the UK.

It's illegal to carry a blade longer than 3 inches in the UK, but I know plenty of people who've been mugged at knife point. Turns out criminals don't really care about laws.

--

On topic, most college shootings happen in schools where students aren't allowed to carry guns on campus. I don't know why that is, but it would make sense if that's because the kind of people who do this want to have that feeling of power over someone, and you couldn't get that if someone else might have that kind of control.

With this sort of thing I think it should be an 'all or nothing' situation. Everyone has access to something all the time, or noone has access to it at all, otherwise those who don't have access become an easy target for those who do.

 

[kawligia]

I think the idea is if they're so close to you that they have 'a gun to your head' it's a bit too late to do anything no matter what. By the same token however, if someone puts a knife to your throat it's the same situation. On the other hand if you hear someone breaking into your house, and you shout at them 'Get the hell out, i'm armed and not afraid to shoot!' theres a pretty good chance they're going to bolt it, burglars aren't famed for their bravery. It could go either way in that situation but it's (imo) a better scenario than letting someone stick any weapon near your face.

From what I gather through statistics, America has a massive amount of serious crime (Rape and Murder) compared to other countries, but much lower petty crime (Anything else). Think I read something like on average you are 8 times less likely to have your home burgled if you live in America than if you live in the UK.

Then it should be no surprise to you that something like 1 out of every 4 American homes has a gun in it, but only a very small fraction of people have concealed carry permits.

Break into a home in America, you have a good chance of getting your head blown off unless you manage to sneak in entirely undetected. But if you rob or rape someone on the street, they are most likely unarmed and cant do much to stop you. Hence, more violent crimes on the street, fewer home invasions.

And you are right. If you don't notice the criminal until they already "have a gun in your face" then you're screwed. But if you are paying attention to your surroundings and notice a suspicious character coming at you, then you can be prepared to draw if need be. Actually, you probably won't even have to draw. All you need to do is move your jacket or shirt to partially reveal the gun. 9 times out of 10, the would-be-attacker, will back off without any trouble when that happens.