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

[Daveman]

FAIL! Gun control does little to curb gun violence - indeed, it creates a trend of not more gun violence, but more of it resulting in fatalities. Look up the numbers - gun control doesn't work.

No, that's balls, gun crime in the UK is tiny compared to america. The last time there was ANY gun related crime in my town was about 5 years ago when a jewelers was robbed with a REPLICA pistol. I myself have seen a real gun ONCE. I do live in a very safe area but in the nearest city there is no gun crime to be heard of either.

 

[The Black Adder]

Students have almost no rights in public schools. In fact, it may be due to the entitlement of school kids that there is so much tension. Why not uniforms? What makes you think you have the RIGHT to wear what you want? What makes you think you have the RIGHT to leave campus whenever you want? What makes you think you have the RIGHT to say and do what you want in a public school?

I have a skewed view on the subject. I'm in the process of becoming a public school educator.

What right does anyone have to tell anyone else what to do? We are granted rights by nature when we are born and no one except death has the right to take them away. Ideas like your's are one's that are good if you want to turn kids to mature into cattle, and not free thinking liberated and enlightened adults. An example of how bad the education system is in this country? I already have my associates degree and I'm going for my Bachelor's and there are kids in my school that don't know basic math or basic spelling and grammar. And these morons in my college take up space in classes that I could be taking and learning something from. Maybe the fault isn't in the education system but in people themselves. People are just stupid.

 

[kawligia]

FAIL! Gun control does little to curb gun violence - indeed, it creates a trend of not more gun violence, but more of it resulting in fatalities. Look up the numbers - gun control doesn't work.

No, that's balls, gun crime in the UK is tiny compared to america. The last time there was ANY gun related crime in my town was about 5 years ago when a jewelers was robbed with a REPLICA pistol. I myself have seen a real gun ONCE. I do live in a very safe area but in the nearest city there is no gun crime to be heard of either.

The UK has NEVER had a strong gun culture. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Bobbies even packed heat until a few years ago.

But America is different. Guns have been around since the American Revolution. Citizens and criminals are both entrenched in that standard. Once that happens, there is no turning back. If you (attempt to) disarm criminals here they will find guns on the black market. This is a FACT because that is already what they do. Anyone with any criminal history CANNOT buy a gun. They find them on the black market, which is ironically LESS expensive than buying them legitimately.

Because of this fact, citizens want to arm themselves against criminals because its not wise to bring a knife to a gun-fight. No matter how illegal guns are, criminals will always find a way to get them just like drugs. Even if every civilized nation in the world jointly banned all private gun manufacture, guns would still be stolen from police and military and/or manufactured in 3rd world nations who wants to turn an easy profit.

Also, most people forget that an armed citizenry is not just about personal protection from criminals. Its a check against potential governmental tyranny. We have an elaborate system in America to prevent tyranny, but should that fail and should the government no longer be of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we can take our government back by force. As long as there is even the threat of rebellion by an armed populace, then there will NEVER BE tyranny because there are a LOT more armed citizens than members in the military. Only when the populace is disarmed and helpless is it possible for any government to run away with itself. Its why every tyrannical leader in history has disarmed its populace and its the main reason our founding fathers, who just won a bloody war for freedom, wanted to ensure that it would not have to happen again.

Of course nobody in their right mind wants to see a civil war and our government doesn't currently show any major signs of tyranny, but what about tomorrow? Rome was a Republic once and Ceasar turned it into a dictatorship. It CAN happen, but the only way it WOULD happen, is if we forget that it is a possibility and toss away the precautions designed to prevent it.

Getting rid of guns because of their occasional misuse would be like banning automobiles because of the occasional vehicular homicide. Small benefit, MAJOR cost.

 

[Daveman]

The UK has NEVER had a strong gun culture. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Bobbies even packed heat until a few years ago.

But America is different. Guns have been around since the American Revolution. Citizens and criminals are both entrenched in that standard. Once that happens, there is no turning back. If you (attempt to) disarm criminals here they will find guns on the black market. This is a FACT because that is already what they do. Anyone with any criminal history CANNOT buy a gun. They find them on the black market, which is ironically LESS expensive than buying them legitimately.

Because of this fact, citizens want to arm themselves against criminals because its not wise to bring a knife to a gun-fight. No matter how illegal guns are, criminals will always find a way to get them just like drugs. Even if every civilized nation in the world jointly banned all private gun manufacture, guns would still be stolen from police and military and/or manufactured in 3rd world nations who wants to turn an easy profit.

Also, most people forget that an armed citizenry is not just about personal protection from criminals. Its a check against potential governmental tyranny. We have an elaborate system in America to prevent tyranny, but should that fail and should the government no longer be of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we can take our government back by force. As long as there is even the threat of rebellion by an armed populace, then there will NEVER BE tyranny because there are a LOT more armed citizens than members in the military. Only when the populace is disarmed and helpless is it possible for any government to run away with itself. Its why every tyrannical leader in history has disarmed its populace and its the main reason our founding fathers, who just won a bloody war for freedom, wanted to ensure that it would not have to happen again.

BTW, the above paragraph is not just my opinion, its the US Supreme Court's opinion in the Heller v. D.C. case last summer.

Getting rid of guns because of their occasional misuse would be like banning automobiles because of the occasional vehicular homicide. Small benefit, MAJOR cost.

1)Police in Britain have been able to use guns for ages actually.

2) "Bring a knife to a gun-fight", how is that in any way a good analogy? It's not a certainty they're going to be attacked. Who are they trying to protect themselves from anyway? You've got to be quite suspicious to assume somebody's going to break into your house and attempt to kill you (and I would note that I feel that this is the only circumstance in which lethal force would be justified).

3)So they are selling RPGs, mortars, tanks, fighter jets and nukes at your local gun store? How could a simple gun, even if wielded by everyone in the US, possibly compete with the might of the US military. That is the stupidest argument I can think of and if the supreme court agree then they're retarded too.

4) CHANGE THE STUPID, OUTDATED PIECE OF RUBBISH (the US constitution) THAT YOU GOVERN YOUR ENTIRE LIVES ON.

 

[Superbeast]

Now you're saying that gun crimes outweigh DGUs (with no source mere speculation)

And your source does no better regarding DGUs. It makes a speculation that DGUs are unreported and lumps an (unwarranted without proper research) amount onto the levels of DGUs to make guns appear better defensively.

Not all assaults incolve firing a gun, either - only about 20% did according to that source. So maybe not all assaults get listed as "armed assaults" if the gun was merely in the belt?

The source doesn't take into account a very large portion of gun users. Therefore, in a statistical analysis of gun culture, the source is fatally flawed. The stats are useless because they are, essentially, made up (they compensate for unreported DGUs but don't compensate for the fact they don't even include 99% of the members of gangs [ie those between 16 and 25] in their research. Yes, me saying assaults are likely to be greater, but then by not fairly representing a large portion of data, and adding to DGUs based on a non-researched hypothesis is speculation too

Criminals can always get guns (even here in the UK) but banning them makes apprehension easier - anyone seen in public with a weapon, or suspected of owning, carrying or having supplied a weapon, is liable to arrest. That means (with no handguns available for 'law abiding' citizens) that any handguns in circulation are seen easier, the databases regarding weapon profiles are smaller, making searches quicker (ie comparing bullet striations to the bore of the barrel) and traces are far easier (since less people in the area will have handled guns at all).

This does not, repeat not turn the citizens into easier victims - the criminals (as a whole, mostly the "lower class" criminals) are less likely to want to use their firearms for simple muggings and break-ins. Without an armed populace, the criminals are less likely to arm themselves (since it means they have less to worry about if being arrested, and there will be less suspicion on them if they have never handled/bought/sold firearms, making it easier for them to carry out their nefarious deeds unhundered by federal action). Was your populace true, then guncrime in other western nations would be higher. Yes, we do not have such a heretige of guns being a part of our culture - but then we still have a black market for criminals to access firearms - and for some, unknown reason (since obviously they are, according to you, certainly going to arm themselves so they can take on anyone much more easily) they don't purchase these firearms in any great extent. Were your hypothesis true, then given our criminal classes have access, similar gang cultures and equal funding to their American counterparts then we would see mass homicides and muggings with firearms, and our murder rate with firearms would be far higher.

But it's not. Why do you think that is (since they've exactly the same means and reasons to arm themselves as their American counterparts with exactly the same benefits)?



Regarding the alcohol issue - it's assinine at best. I am not against banning alcohol. It's beneficial for relaxation and de-stressing individuals (which in our corporate societies has health benefits) and it's a highly lucrative form of taxation for the government. Yes, it causes severe damage, but only by idiots who like to either 1) drunk too much too young or 2) think it's a fantastic idea to get into a car and drive home because they can "handle" the 15 tequilas. I see these negativities as a problem with society (the "binge drinking culture", lack of education, glorification of young girls as sexual objects - which in turn leads to all sorts of other problems and so on). Plus, I'm a hypocrite. I am allowed to be in favour of some things than others - I am not constrained by beliefs that all negative things in human life should be banned, and neither will I allow a fellow internet-goer to try to destabilise my argument that handguns should be restricted in the US by the fact I am not in favour of banning alcohol (at least alcohol has a purpose other than merely killing fellow humans and occasionally animals).

Remember - I am not advocating the regulation of any guns in america, merely automatics (currently banned, iirc) and handguns (apart from sports and perhaps case-by-case for hunting) - rifles and shotguns are fine by me, since these are useful tools for hunting and very hard to conceal about your person, decreasing the liklihood of them being used in criminal activities. That would still be constitutional too (since you would still be "bearing arms" and could still form "citizen militias"...though how much good it will be to you facing a modern military...a friendly "good luck" from Britian in overthrowing your tyrannical overlords you voted into power by free will, as a nation) Yes, I know that part in brackets isn't what you are getting at, or advocating in your post, but it raises an interesting point - how is being armed with rifles and handguns going to help against tanks and helicopters and trained soldiers in body armour? Therefore does it not mean the Ammendmant is dated and should be revised (even though I understand it's impossible to revise, change or ban anything to do with the constitution)? Yes, over here we'd be rather powerless, but then no government in it's right mind would even become tyranical, even with military support (remember, Hitler was failing miserably until people actually started to vote for him based on xenophobia and the depression - hopefully we have more sense these days...though I doubt it).

Can you please answer me something, something I see every time this debate arises? Why is it that you guys (Americans represented by Father Time, I would hate to be presumptious and assume he speaks for all Americans) fear your own government so much? No other developed nation holds this idea that the Government would suddenly decide to opress all it's citizens to such an extent than an armed uprising would be necessary, or effective. It's not happened so far in any other unarmed country (well, barring Germany in the 1930s, but I'd argue that was more due to the economic factors forced upon the country by the Treaty of Versailles convincing the public that Hitler's rhetoric held some promise of a better future - they still have to vote for him though, he didn't take over in a coup), and is largely unthinkable. Why do you (still) harbour resentment against the governmental powers (I can understant it around the time of the aftermath of the revolution, after the bitter experience under the British) but 200 years-or-so later?

 

[kawligia]

1)Police in Britain have been able to use guns for ages actually.

2) "Bring a knife to a gun-fight", how is that in any way a good analogy? It's not a certainty they're going to be attacked. Who are they trying to protect themselves from anyway? You've got to be quite suspicious to assume somebody's going to break into your house and attempt to kill you (and I would note that I feel that this is the only circumstance in which lethal force would be justified).

3)So they are selling RPGs, mortars, tanks, fighter jets and nukes at your local gun store? How could a simple gun, even if wielded by everyone in the US, possibly compete with the might of the US military. That is the stupidest argument I can think of and if the supreme court agree then they're retarded too.

4) CHANGE THE STUPID, OUTDATED PIECE OF RUBBISH (the US constitution) THAT YOU GOVERN YOUR ENTIRE LIVES ON.

1) I didn't mean to say they weren't allowed to carry guns. I intended to say that in practice, they didn't routinely carry guns until sometime in the 90s.

2) I don't understand your point. Are you saying that just because being attacked on any given day is not an absolute certainty that you should never be prepared for it? Getting in a car wreck is not a certainty but people still wear their seatbelts. There are countless thousands of crimes committed every day. It sounds like you think its only something that happens to "someone else."

3) Because there are as few as 1.5 million soldiers in the US army. There are 300+ million citizens. Being outnumbered almost 300 to 1 are not great odds even for the US military. Also, that original 1.5 million number includes the Air Force and the Navy who are not ground troops and would have limited usefulness in that type of engagement. In addition, the military would probably loose a significant number of soldiers when it came time to pick sides.

On top of that, I highly doubt the US military would go rampaging through city streets with tanks and mortar fire and nukes, especially against its own citizens who may or may not be combatants. Furthermore, the sheer number of armed citizens could choke the military of supplies on their own turf. It would not be a pretty situation for them by any stretch of the imagination.

Also consider the fact that the US already defeated the vastly superior army of Great Brittan in 1776 AND the Confederate Army came extremely close to defeating the superior Union Army during the civil war.

The chances of a united armed rebellion being successful are a lot greater than you think. Even if they weren't, the deterrent factor of having to shoot and be shot by your own neighbors is enough to make tyranny very unlikely in the first place. Hopefully, that deterrent will be all we will ever need.

4) We are not going to get rid of the Constitution any sooner than you will get rid of the Magna Carta and return to a full blown Monarchy, disbanding Parlaiment. The Constitution can be amended through the proper channels if there is enough support in the country for it. Here's the thing: there is NOT enough support for amending the Constitution to take away this right. As a result, we have a lot of loud-mouths out there who want to IGNORE the supreme law of the land because they don't like it and don't have enough support to change it. But if they can be allowed to ignore that constitutional provision, what other constitutional provision can they ignore? Free speech? Privacy? They seem to be working on those two right now!

 

[cleverlymadeup]

taken from the study's conclusion

"By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders."

right and they they also go on to say how much a lot of those stats are wrong and there's nothing to say it was even necessary to use a gun, they said most ppl used it cause they assumed they needed it, they could have well lived if they didn't use it as well

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.

actually that's not what the study says, you should really read it first cause it does say "there's no proof they needed to use the gun"

so no it doesn't seem like a good thing as it probly needlessly took a life

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.

muggers always show their weapons when it's too late, also most criminals don't break into homes when you're home, if they know you are, they try to subdue you asap so you can't call the cops. most will go when you're asleep, so hopefully you wake up

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.

simply put it's illegal because they are under 18

 

[kawligia]

Snip

Your argument that criminals will be less likely to carry guns because they are illegal presupposes two things which are blatantly not true:

1) That criminals will be deterred by the consequences of their actions.

If criminals were deterred by the consequences of their actions, they wouldn't be committing crimes in the first place. They either don't think about the it, don't care about it, or think they won't get caught for it. Either way, they are not deterred by the punishment for their original crime, so WHY in the world would they be concerned about the extra penalties for commiting that crime with a firearm???

2) That criminals will only use as much force as is necessary to commit a crime.

Police, military, and citizens do this in order to protect bystanders from potential harm and because using more force than is necessary is illegal. Criminals don't care about either of those things. If they cared about causing harm to other people or not breaking the law, they would not be committing crimes in the first place!

If criminals only wanted to use as much force as is necessary to commit the crime, then criminals would not pull out a knife or a gun unless they think their victim might do the same! That is NOT what happens!

And don't forget, there are ALREADY HARSH PENALTIES for committing a crime with a firearm. There are ALREADY HARSH PENALTIES for even possessing a firearm if you are a convicted felon! Neither of those has stopped them!

--------------

And to answer you other question, America was founded specifically to be free from oppression. Of course we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past! History has taught us REPEATEDLY that unchecked government will eventually turn into tyranny. Goverment, by its very nature, attracts people who want power. People with power WILL use it. Unless we maintain our protections, they WILL crumble.

Look at Rome. Around 500 B.C. they threw out the last of the oppressive Etruscan Kings and formed a republic where there was NO single man who had full power and authority. This was to make sure that they would not be in that situation again. A few centuries later, people became complacent and Caesar overthrew the Senate and established a dictatorship.

This is exactly what is happening today. People are becoming complacent and are forgetting why we do the things we do, why we have been trying so hard to not repeat the mistakes of the past, or even why the mistakes of the past were mistakes to begin with.

And then history repeats itself...again.

 

[Hawks_Pride]

See, this is the thing I love. People will argue that gun control works to curb crime until they're blue in the face (or the fingers, in this case), despite being presented with lots of evidence to the contrary (clev, I'm looking straight at you; reread that study's conclusion, and this time, keep an open mind). Really, the only thing it does is make it so that the cops and crooks are the only ones with guns. If that's acceptable to you, have fun with the soon-to-be-authoritarian state. Me, personally, I'll hang onto my rifles, shotguns, and pistols; for target shooting, hunting, and defense. All of them work for the target shooting and defense, and the shotguns and rifles work for hunting.

And if you think any of my firearms are dangerous in my hands, then it is my sad duty to inform you, that you are misinformed. They're only dangerous to people with ill intent towards me and mine, as well as the clay pigeons, cardboard target backers, paper targets, and dirt backstops down at the shooting range. And, if I'm having a particularly lousy day, the plastic bins that we keep the target pasters in on the rifle range, which we foolishly keep in front of the berms..

 

[Danzaivar]

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.

muggers always show their weapons when it's too late, also most criminals don't break into homes when you're home, if they know you are, they try to subdue you asap so you can't call the cops. most will go when you're asleep, so hopefully you wake up

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.

simply put it's illegal because they are under 18

Erm, in England, most burglaries happen while you sleep at night and they try to be quiet to not wake someone up. Not while you're out during the day simply because there's no risk (If the house owner attacks the burglar the burglar can sue). Never heard of someone in my town having their house broken into during the day. In America they might break in when no ones home because if the home-owner is there, you'll probably get shot.

I said College shootings (Like, Virginia Tech was at a college I think?), not Highschool. Which is 18+, No guns in High Schools makes sense, kids carrying guns about is crazy talk.

I do agree most muggings happen before you know realise what's going on, but if its someone else being mugged across the road or whatever, you're in a position to help (Rather than just call the police and make sure they're okay).

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Erm, in England, most burglaries happen while you sleep at night and they try to be quiet to not wake someone up. Not while you're out during the day simply because there's no risk (If the house owner attacks the burglar the burglar can sue). Never heard of someone in my town having their house broken into during the day. In America they might break in when no ones home because if the home-owner is there, you'll probably get shot.

never heard of someone being robbed when they're out for the night or when they're away on vacation?

I said College shootings (Like, Virginia Tech was at a college I think?), not Highschool. Which is 18+, No guns in High Schools makes sense, kids carrying guns about is crazy talk.

it's to discourage such things as gun violence, like i said if you've already decided to go on a murderous rampage, the fact that there is armed ppl there isn't going to slow you down too much. there is a good chance you will either kill yourself after or know you will go down in a hail of gun fire

most of it is to stop stupid idiots killing themselves and/or others because they try to act tough and shoot something

I do agree most muggings happen before you know realise what's going on, but if its someone else being mugged across the road or whatever, you're in a position to help (Rather than just call the police and make sure they're okay).

actually that's not self defense as your life isn't in danger, that's being a vigilante if you shoot them is at the very least assault with a deadly weapon

 

[JWAN]

From the viewpoint of an American

You have a select few imbeciles who get a hold of guns (Illegally or legally)
You have that person go to school and get harassed daily
They get angrier and they snap, and go on a shooting rampage

Its not because of TV
Its not because of Videogames

I just think that a few stupid parents let the kids raise themselves and the kid goes nuts.

 

[JWAN]

Erm, in England, most burglaries happen while you sleep at night and they try to be quiet to not wake someone up. Not while you're out during the day simply because there's no risk (If the house owner attacks the burglar the burglar can sue). Never heard of someone in my town having their house broken into during the day. In America they might break in when no ones home because if the home-owner is there, you'll probably get shot.

never heard of someone being robbed when they're out for the night or when they're away on vacation?

I said College shootings (Like, Virginia Tech was at a college I think?), not Highschool. Which is 18+, No guns in High Schools makes sense, kids carrying guns about is crazy talk.

it's to discourage such things as gun violence, like i said if you've already decided to go on a murderous rampage, the fact that there is armed ppl there isn't going to slow you down too much. there is a good chance you will either kill yourself after or know you will go down in a hail of gun fire

most of it is to stop stupid idiots killing themselves and/or others because they try to act tough and shoot something

I do agree most muggings happen before you know realise what's going on, but if its someone else being mugged across the road or whatever, you're in a position to help (Rather than just call the police and make sure they're okay).

actually that's not self defense as your life isn't in danger, that's being a vigilante if you shoot them is at the very least assault with a deadly weapon

thats called "Giving aid"
being a vigilante is chasing muggers down every night and shooting them outright
if its a robbery in progress its a totally different situation

 

[Danzaivar]

it's to discourage such things as gun violence, like i said if you've already decided to go on a murderous rampage, the fact that there is armed ppl there isn't going to slow you down too much...

Well, I imagine one of the students shooting back and incapacitating the murderous rampager would slow him down a damn sight faster than waiting for them to run out of bullets by using them on your class mates.

I sincerely doubt people with gun violence in mind would really care that the campus doesn't allow guns. Why don't people get this? If you ban something, you only affect law abiding people.

[edit: and people who have managed to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon wouldn't dare wave their gun about just 'cos they was angry, all that's going to do is get their permit revoked and never get a new one]

 

[kawligia]

Everything else aside, gun-free zones are a perfect case study of what happens when only criminals and police are armed.

Criminals go nuts and kill people. People are defenseless and die like lambs while screaming to the 911 operator for help. Police show up eventually but not nearly soon enough.

We live in a society that loves PROOF. Well here it is. Gun-free zones are like a perfect laboratory experiment of how this concept works out in the real world because it IS the real world.

Counter-arguments are mostly "well you can't always protect yourself" which is true. But just because I am not guaranteed to successfully defend myself doesn't mean I should be denied the opportunity to begin with.

Other counter-arguments consist of "well the rest of the country allows guns and that's where they get them." This fails to recognize that there will always be a place to get guns even if its from another country, just like how criminals get illegal drugs.

 

[Carlston]

**ReI have been assigned by my dear English teacher to scribble down an essay about (You
Basically, my assignment goes like this:
"Write a report in which you describe and discuss school shootings in America. Why are American schools especially in the danger zone when it comes to being attacked with guns by crazy or angry students?"
What do you think?
Discuss, and give me some opinions. =)
************************

Ok my thoughts from the US,
Going to school in the 80's and ending in the 90 at the time of gang violence I can sum it up for you. Back in the 50's when violent cowboy movies did nothing but glorify violence, but there was a acceptance of a certain level of violence. Bully beats up nerd. Nerd strengths up and stands up for himself or is forever outcast. Oh and originality, long hair, different clothing from the norm was punished from the entire city not just peers.

Fast forward to the 90's the begining of punishing teachers for spanking students, but the resistance to stop children-teens beating up others. Rules are no fighting. Teacher staff that grew up with the fighting makes kid stronger ideal are against it and school spankings. They can't spank so they let the children do the punishing for them. So if a child/teen was jumped by four people and beaten. They would punish the victim just as baddly as the bullies for complaining.

Now add the rules stepping in, protecting victim...then bully waits till after school. Victim takes one step off school ground beats victem three times as bad. Not on school grounds no foul.

Plus have the beatings everyday, several times a day. Nerd can not strength up and stand up to multiple attackers or even leave thier house for a jog... I grew up with it.

Now add in the outcasts, Goths, emos, nerds, stoners, rockers ect. People who never fit in and by school staff are not the quarterbacks, popular or elite. But they are happy where they are and are shunned for it.

And of course, have a child/teen beaten repeatedly from grades 1-12 in a small town with schools so small they never mix up the kids to meet new people, reputaions form and same old same old happens until...
Drum roll.

Nerd learns 9mm ends the suffering they take everyday and gives them the power to fight back. Now the almighty Columbine. Two outcasts, beaten by gangs of jocks and populars.

Not only did they fight back, they killed more than one in the process. They were outraged not x amount of outcasts died, but the beautiful and popular did. There was nothing random on who they shot, and even had planned to make bombs to kill more of the people that made their lives living hells.

The girls who said they looked at thier naughty bits to get thier boyfriends to beat them up. The girl they walked up to and shot in the head (and no they did not ask her if she believed in god then shot her. That was made up by the church. Girl next to her even said on national television they said nothing and just shot her.)

The outrage was now they had to follow the laws and rules. And if it was not guns, it would have been knives, swords, pointy sticks, claw hammers, the basics of man. Ug caveman can't beat Oog for mate, Ug get rock or club, Ug win.

So, you had schools with rules, a country with assault laws that not only ignored victims, but punished them, After 365 x9/12 days of being attack, imprisoned in thier own homes (yes i seen kids do it for fun, hanging around the "nerd" streets for a victim) They got what they deserved.

Matter of fact movies are less violent now than the videogames. And in the 50, hell Cowboys and indians was a nice child game of genocide and glorifed scalpings ect.

I blame the laws, and I blame the people who could have acted on such things, You can have laws, say something is wrong then turn your nose up at when people ask for help... having unenforceable laws on the books weakens the law as a whole till it is a joke. Hence why we had a rash of crimes by kids under 17 because they know they will not be tried as adults.

To blame movies, video games ect is just a bad parent covering up, a schools staff ect. They influance those around them, and if they let the weak suffer...well hell look up what happened to every french king who stuffed his face with food while his people starved. Chances are they were left without a head.

All good kids follow the rules, you need to follow the rules. Oh but that kid is a football player, and that girl is a big boob'ed slut...they can do what they want. Because they are better than you. And you are a failure. So you follow the rules, while they break them and beat you down...everyday for 12 years.

And that's my take on watching the apathy, to gang violence, to shootings...
And it almost happened at my school.

Suburbia and America is a dangerous thing.

 

[Carlston]

1)Police in Britain have been able to use guns for ages actually.

2) "Bring a knife to a gun-fight", how is that in any way a good analogy? It's not a certainty they're going to be attacked. Who are they trying to protect themselves from anyway? You've got to be quite suspicious to assume somebody's going to break into your house and attempt to kill you (and I would note that I feel that this is the only circumstance in which lethal force would be justified).

3)So they are selling RPGs, mortars, tanks, fighter jets and nukes at your local gun store? How could a simple gun, even if wielded by everyone in the US, possibly compete with the might of the US military. That is the stupidest argument I can think of and if the supreme court agree then they're retarded too.

4) CHANGE THE STUPID, OUTDATED PIECE OF RUBBISH (the US constitution) THAT YOU GOVERN YOUR ENTIRE LIVES ON.[/quote]

**************
1. Seems people have odd view points and never really look into others cultures.
Bobby don't have guns, In Texas we ride horses to school, Violence is a American problem only (no like certain middle eastern countries behead people for missing a prayer or wanting to change a religion) If they only seen it on TV, or the net ect, sterotypes abound.
I know what Britain was like, because when I was over seas talked to alot of UK troops while I was playing in the sand.

2. I live in Houston Tx, you break into a dwelling after dark, you can shoot a robber armed or not. Least in this state they understand someone breaking into a house is not there to give me a back massage. And military trained, At 30 feet give me the knife, I don't have to cock a round or turn off a safty, draw...stab better than a pistol.

3. Of course, disarming the citizen with a underfund police force just makes the entire country victims. DC were they banned firearms, guess what. Highest crime rate for many a year. Texas we can get concealed handguns...lower. Difference, in one area a criminal with a gun knows the sheep don't have any way to protect themselves... Texas, anyone can be armed...even granny. A armed society is a polite one.

4. It has been changed, sorry ammended alot. Just its a vauge outline of things. It needs some more solid rules. Saddly never happen since it will seep religious beliefs, people with use rules to undermine the meaning of the document as they always have.

Rev C