• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Does The U.S. Have More School Shootings Than Everywhere Else?

imagep said:
I hear they are doing pretty well in Somolia.
Click to expand...

How are they ranked? Are there any non-education factors used in the rankings?

Somalia is a failed communist state state. Somalia is a state.
 
scatt said:
How are they ranked? Are there any non-education factors used in the rankings?

Somalia is a failed communist state state. Somalia is a state.
Click to expand...

I've been told that Somalia is currently a libertarian paradise. Somalians are pretty much at liberty to do whatever they chose, without the guberment being involved or limiting their rights.

How has that been working out for them?
 
Wiseone said:
Mexico is swamped with weapons, and its the inability of the police and now even the Army to bust up the organized drug cartels. This is one of those "other factors" I'm speaking of in my post, again I hate having to repeat that its not just about how many guns a country has floating around.

By the way I said there's no way to deny the connection between the availability of guns and statistical probability of being shot or shooting someone with one, that doesn't mean that the availability is legal. So Mexico for example, guns are extremely available to anyone who wants one, legal or otherwise it makes no difference I'm speaking of simple availability
Click to expand...

And that speaks for the inability for gun laws to be enforced. So what you have in mexico is a situation where legal citizens have no means to protect themselves.. while the criminals can do what they want.

And yes there is a way to deny the connection between the availability of gins and the statistical probability of being shot or shooting someone with one. For example, lets compare two cities in America..

We'll take Boise Idaho.. and New York City.

Certainly, if we were to look at the number of guns per capita.. Boise Idaho would have far and away more guns per capita than New York City . Now according to the premise that availability equals more shootings.. Boise Idaho should be one of the most dangerous places in the US. but its not.. in fact.. where as I would be absolutely safe walking the streets of Boise at night.. the same could not be said for NYC.

Lets take a look at country wide statistics...

Lets take the US.. with a world leading 89 guns per 100 residents..

Now lets look at Afghanistan at a paltry 4.6 guns per 100 residents.

Now if availability of guns were the dominate factor.. then Afghanistan should be a utopia of serenity and safety.

Or Libya for that matter with 15 guns per 100 residents

Now.. do we really want to claim that I am more likely to be shot in America than in Afghanistan?
 
imagep said:
I understand where you are coming from, but if students aren't interested in school, they are more likely to drop out. There are tons of things that we can do to keep them in school, like more extra-curriculars, classes that are suited to their particular needs, having instructors that aren't boring, and providing guidance as to why particular classes may be relevant to their future success on the job and in life.

While I agree that the purpose of school is learning, you can't really get kids to learn, if they aren't interested in what is being taught, and if they don't think that what is being taught is important, and if they don't think that completing school is important.

Certainly bad parenting is a big issue. It's ashamed that the only parenting that some kids get is from teachers.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is the schools job to 'entertain' kids. School was boring as crap when I was in it, it was when my parents were in it, and so on. The dropout rates were not as high. It's not the boredom, it's the lack of parenting and a core set of values.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Directly from the ATF Form 4473:

f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

And let me say this once again, Felons are prohibited from owning guns!

It does not matter if they are "violent" or not. For the same reason that those with a Dishonorable Discharge are prohibited from owning a gun (the next question on the form), because it is the equivalent of a Felony Conviction.

Have you ever even filled out a 4473? I do not care if the person is a danger or not at that time. If they are incapable of making reasonable routine decisions, they have no reason or right to possess a deadly weapon.

I guess you are one of those people that the anti-gun nutjobs talk about, who wants to give guns to criminals and the mentally ill. Is disturbing to know that people like you actually exist.
Click to expand...

I find it disturbing that folks like you exist... that you would wish to limit a persons freedom not based on their actions but based on what you feel.

I pointed out that I am okay with VIOLENT felons being prohibited from guns... I did not say that it was the law that only those were prevented.

Roughly half of felons are convicted of a violent crime.. my buddy who was convicted of tax evasion and got 5 years of probation is not a danger to you or me or anyone else for that matter. And preventing him from having a weapon is simply stupid and a waste of taxpayers dollars for enforcement...

Have I filled out a form 4473.. certainly.. probably a lot more than you. Does it do anything to prevent violent individuals from getting guns? Absolutely not.. Because if you are willing to go to jail for murder.. you are not going to be deterred by FORM 4473!

As far as section f. Please note that it says Adjudicated... which means that you have been judged in a court of law to be incompetent. In other words, you have been give DUE PROCESS OF LAW...

Whats disturbing to me is that you think that because I don't think someone's rights should be taken away without due process of law and without regard to reality.. that makes me a "nutjob"...
 
Adam Lanza, James Holmes, George Bremer, John Hinkley, Jared Loughner, the list just goes on and on. People who had significant mental illness, who were allowed to continue without mental treatment until they simply snapped.

And you are worried about taking guns away from people like that, because it might "violate their rights"?

Sorry, I am more worried about my right to life and safety then of somebody with a mental illness. Nor am I concerned with the rights of a felon, no matter what their crime is. They broke the law, now they get to deal with that decision for the rest of their life. Because as far as I am concerned, they broke it once, no reason to expect them to not break it again in the future.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Adam Lanza, James Holmes, George Bremer, John Hinkley, Jared Loughner, the list just goes on and on. People who had significant mental illness, who were allowed to continue without mental treatment until they simply snapped.

And you are worried about taking guns away from people like that, because it might "violate their rights"?

Sorry, I am more worried about my right to life and safety then of somebody with a mental illness. Nor am I concerned with the rights of a felon, no matter what their crime is. They broke the law, now they get to deal with that decision for the rest of their life. Because as far as I am concerned, they broke it once, no reason to expect them to not break it again in the future.
Click to expand...

Well, you pointed to the issue.. without mental treatment...

How about the thousands upon thousands of folks every darn day... that have mental illness... or that have HAD mental illness and are better now... that go to work, come home, raise children and yes own a gun.. and have never and WILL NEVER.. use a gun irresponsibly... EVER..

Every dang day that happens... not one problem.. not one violent outburst...

But you want to take their guns away.. because you can list 5 people.. or 50! That killed someone and had mental illness? and some of the examples you give wouldn't have been deterred by the law anyway?

AS far as breaking the law and owning a firearm.... answer honestly.. Do you own a firearm? Have you ever broken the law?"
 
jaeger19 said:
Well, you pointed to the issue.. without mental treatment...

How about the thousands upon thousands of folks every darn day... that have mental illness... or that have HAD mental illness and are better now... that go to work, come home, raise children and yes own a gun.. and have never and WILL NEVER.. use a gun irresponsibly... EVER..

Every dang day that happens... not one problem.. not one violent outburst...

But you want to take their guns away.. because you can list 5 people.. or 50! That killed someone and had mental illness? and some of the examples you give wouldn't have been deterred by the law anyway?

AS far as breaking the law and owning a firearm.... answer honestly.. Do you own a firearm? Have you ever broken the law?"
Click to expand...

I have never said it should be a lifelong ban, it depends on the individual and their condition. If it is mild (like post-partum depression), then I see no reason why they should get a lifetime ban from buying weapons.

And I did not say breaking the law, I said convicted felons. I have broken the law, as has everybody else. But I have never committed a felony, let alone been convicted of doing so.

And yes, I have even spent a couple of months in the LA County Corrections system. And I own firearms, because I was not convicted of a felony!

Yea, keep making these strawman claims though. TO bad it is only giving ammunition to those that think all pro-gun supporters are nuts who want to see criminals and the insane with guns.
 
imagep said:
Very possible. I don't hang out with degenerates. Do you?
Click to expand...

I do not, but I mentally hang out with Diogenes, does that count?

Diogenes-statue-Sinop-enhanced.jpg
 
Arbo said:
You missed the point entirely, as expected. But keep on living in that left wing dream that a sign saying 'no guns allowed' has ever stopped anyone. LOL.



Some nice diversion. Again, expected considering the source.
Click to expand...

Fine - let's get rid of the signs - I never thought they worked anyway. But as we get rid of the signs, let's implement the same kind of common-sense gun control that every other first-world nation has...and then maybe someday our children won't need to have lockdown drills anymore.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
let's implement the same kind of common-sense gun control that every other first-world nation has...
Click to expand...

Let's not, as we are not 'every other' country. And all those countries do not have the protected right to own firearms.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Sorry, but I do not think you know what "First World" is or means.
Click to expand...

In liberal speak it means "any country that does things the way we want America to do them, Constitution be damned."
 
Oozlefinch said:
I have never said it should be a lifelong ban, it depends on the individual and their condition. If it is mild (like post-partum depression), then I see no reason why they should get a lifetime ban from buying weapons.

And I did not say breaking the law, I said convicted felons. I have broken the law, as has everybody else. But I have never committed a felony, let alone been convicted of doing so.

And yes, I have even spent a couple of months in the LA County Corrections system. And I own firearms, because I was not convicted of a felony!

Yea, keep making these strawman claims though. TO bad it is only giving ammunition to those that think all pro-gun supporters are nuts who want to see criminals and the insane with guns.
Click to expand...

no offense.. but don't you think its ironic that you claim I am making strawman claims when you want to ban folks that haven't done anything violent from having weapons? Because "what if"?

And now you say it depends on the individual and their condition... well folks with post partum depression have been known to murder others. So.. how would your law work... my wife owns a weapon.. she sees her doctor after the birth or our son.. he says.. "you might have post partum depression" and then we have a knock on our door and the Sheriff is there to take away our weapons.

and when do we get them back? We have to have a hearing, or an affidavit. from a physician willing to risk the liability of saying that she is okay to have a weapon, or do we have to pay for another opinion so that we can get our weapons back?

When no one was ever ever at risk?

My position doesn't give ammunition to the anti gunners. It takes it away.. because it uses logic and facts.. not emotion and rhetoric. And the anti gun stance only survives through rhetoric and emotion.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Fine - let's get rid of the signs - I never thought they worked anyway. But as we get rid of the signs, let's implement the same kind of common-sense gun control that every other first-world nation has...and then maybe someday our children won't need to have lockdown drills anymore.[/QUOTE

Except the countries that you hold as examples don't have common sense gun laws. Britain certainly doesn't have common sense gun laws.. nor does any other country you have listed.

The fact is that you aren't for common sense gun laws.. you are for bans and regulations that defy common sense...
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
Except the countries that you hold as examples don't have common sense gun laws. Britain certainly doesn't have common sense gun laws.. nor does any other country you have listed.

The fact is that you aren't for common sense gun laws.. you are for bans and regulations that defy common sense...
Click to expand...

I expect this assertion devolves about one's concept of 'common sense'. Unfortunately, to many people, 'common sense' is what I personally, or my society in general, believes. These may not be the values of all mankind.

There is an old saying (mostly mangled to make no sense in American usage) that "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Your 'common sense gun laws' result in approximately 30,000 Americans dying from gunshot wounds each and every year, whilst our 'nonsensical' ones result in roughly 40 suffering the same fate annually.

I invite the proponents of common sense to draw their own conclusions. :)
 
scatt said:
You are against suicide?
Click to expand...

The concept of a human animal being so troubled or in pain/distress to the extent of wishing to end its existence is both very complex and psychologically troubling. It would require a separate thread and much discussion to examine adequately before any flippant 'for or against' conclusions were drawn.

But I am not so stupid as to miss the implications of your question. I understand that a percentage of people killed by guns are suicides, this applies equally to the UK as it does to the USA. Gun deaths in both societies are the result of murder, manslaughter, accident, and suicide. The quantum is what provides the difference, and does not entirely support the 'common sense' claimed.
 
Leo said:
common sense
Click to expand...

Self-defense is common sense always. England is not big on self-defense (which includes your property and person).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom