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

[Wiseone]

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?

I didn't say that "availability equals more shootings" I said that there's a connection between availability and shooting in the same manner there's a connection between driving and getting into a car accident.

I also didn't say guns were the dominate factor.

Tell me do you deliberately misunderstand other people's arguments?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Let's not, as we are not 'every other' country. And all those countries do not have the protected right to own firearms.

Actually, the 2A protects our right to own "arms", not "firearms"...and at the time it was written, "arms" included not only rifles and pistols, but also cannons and all the black powder one wanted to buy. There was NO limit on how much of what kind of arms one wanted to buy.

So this begs the question: how much is too much? How far is too far? Do we American citizens, then, have a right to buy C4, or RPG's, or machine guns, or .50-cal sniper rifles, or Stinger missiles?

Who makes that call? Who decides what the limit should be, if there is any limit at all? And how can any such limits be maintained with the continuous march of technology?

In other words, those who hold the 2A up as an unquestionable, almost holy document...haven't really thought it all the way through. Come to think of it, that might be a good OP....

 

[scatt]

Actually, the 2A protects our right to own "arms", not "firearms"...and at the time it was written, "arms" included not only rifles and pistols, but also cannons and all the black powder one wanted to buy

Firearms are arms. And the intent of the amendment is clear, anything the military can have, the citizens can have.

Not sure how many times this has been referenced, but speech therefore only applies to the printing press and words that existed then?

 

[Peter Grimm]

We have more guns than anywhere else.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Firearms are arms. And the intent of the amendment is clear, anything the military can have, the citizens can have.

Not sure how many times this has been referenced, but speech therefore only applies to the printing press and words that existed then?

Okay! That means that it's okay for, say, extremist Muslims who live close to the Dallas/Forth Worth airport to carry around Stinger missiles! What could possibly go wrong?

 

[scatt]

extremist Muslims who live close to the Dallas/Forth Worth airport to carry around Stinger missiles

A land owner can exclude a person who they do not want there, off their property.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

A land owner can exclude a person who they do not want there, off their property.

And if those Muslim extremists - funded by hideously oil-wealthy Saudis - decide to own the land next to DFW?

AND of course in scatt-world, no Muslim extremists would ever, ever dare to drive on publicly-accessible roads near an airport, would they?

 

[scatt]

And if those Muslim extremists - funded by hideously oil-wealthy Saudis - decide to own the land next to DFW?

AND of course in scatt-world, no Muslim extremists would ever, ever dare to drive on publicly-accessible roads near an airport, would they?

No problem with either.

 

[imagep]

Firearms are arms. And the intent of the amendment is clear, anything the military can have, the citizens can have.

Not sure how many times this has been referenced, but speech therefore only applies to the printing press and words that existed then?

So it should be legal for individual citizens to own nuclear weapons?

Would you allow me to hunt in your back yard with a missile?

 

[imagep]

of course in scatt-world

"scatt-world" is a lot like disney world, where everything is fantasy.

Of course at disney world, they actually have rules, and a security force to enforce those rules, so I guess thats the big difference between disney and scatt worlds.

 

[scatt]

So it should be legal for individual citizens to own nuclear weapons?

I do not support state intervention into ownership of arms.

If your question is based upon an unemotional constitutional interpretation (absolutist), feel free to say so. Questions that rely on the premise of the state existing can be answered if that is your premise and if you are asking me with that premise (not asking me my general opinion on the topic).

 

[Leo]

Self-defense is common sense always. England is not big on self-defense (which includes your property and person).

It is indeed - self-defence is enshrined in every legal system in the developed world (and can take extreme forms in the under-developed world) and you get your legal concept of self-defence from the Common Laws of England (as with the basis of your entire legal system).

I may be wrong, and if so, I apologise in advance. However, I get the impression that you are perhaps unfamiliar with certain aspects of Common Law and Statutary Law in the UK.

Allow me to indulge in a brief synopsis of the laws governing self-defence in England (and throughout most of the Commonwealth).

At common law the principle of self-defence operates in three spheres. It allows a person to use reasonable force to:

(a) Defend himself from an attack.

(b) Prevent an attack on another person.

(c) Defend his property.

In addition to which, s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Both the common law and statutory defences can be raised in respect of any crime with which the defendant is charged, and if successful will result in the defendant being completely acquitted. However, if a defendant uses excessive force this indicates that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances. There will therefore be no valid defence, and the defendant will be liable for the crime.

The general principle is that the law allows only reasonable force to be used in the circumstances and, what is reasonable is to be judged in the light of the circumstances as the accused believed them to be (whether reasonably or not).

This is not to be interpreted as permitting a subjective test in examining whether force used in self-defence is reasonably proportionate. The true rule is that a person may use such force as is (objectively) reasonable in the circumstances as he (subjectively) believes them to be. In other words, such force as a reasonable person may deem necessary under the given circumstances (as he understands them).

Leaving aside 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Stand Your Ground' legislation (both unsound variations in my personal opinion,) in what respect do the self-defence laws of the USA differ from those of the UK?

 

[imagep]

I do not support state intervention into ownership of arms.

If your question is based upon an unemotional constitutional interpretation (absolutist), feel free to say so. Questions that rely on the premise of the state existing can be answered if that is your premise and if you are asking me with that premise (not asking me my general opinion on the topic).

That is the longest post I have ever seen you make. you must be feeling better.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No problem with either.

And when they shoot down a few airliners full of people, and all of a sudden our economy takes a nosedive because nobody wants to get on our airliners, and we start another war in the Middle East in revenge...I guess that's all just fine with you, too.

 

[scatt]

It is indeed - self-defence is enshrined in every legal system in the developed world

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Both the common law and statutory defences can be raised in respect of any crime with which the defendant is charged, and if successful will result in the defendant being completely acquitted. However, if a defendant uses excessive force this indicates that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances. There will therefore be no valid defence, and the defendant will be liable for the crime.

The general principle is that the law allows only reasonable force to be used in the circumstances and, what is reasonable is to be judged in the light of the circumstances as the accused believed them to be (whether reasonably or not).

This is not to be interpreted as permitting a subjective test in examining whether force used in self-defence is reasonably proportionate. The true rule is that a person may use such force as is (objectively) reasonable in the circumstances as he (subjectively) believes them to be. In other words, such force as a reasonable person may deem necessary under the given circumstances (as he understands them).

Does this include weapons?

And when they shoot down a few airliners full of people, and all of a sudden our economy takes a nosedive because nobody wants to get on our airliners, and we start another war in the Middle East in revenge...I guess that's all just fine with you, too.

Did the US ban box cutters for all after 9/11?

I, unlike you, do no support state intervention into other countries.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Does this include weapons?



Did the US ban box cutters for all after 9/11?

I, unlike you, do no support state intervention into other countries.

1. Your 'box-cutter' crack doesn't apply. Perhaps you should think instead of the two dozen or so firearms that the TSA confiscates every single week from persons and their carry-on bags as they go through the airport scanners.

2. You really haven't read anything I've written, have you? Except for WWII, where have I written anything supporting American military intervention into other nations? In other words, instead of making assumptions about people you don't like, READ what they have to say first before making such assumptions.

 

[Arbo]

1. Your 'box-cutter' crack doesn't apply. Perhaps you should think instead of the two dozen or so firearms that the TSA confiscates every single week from persons and their carry-on bags as they go through the airport scanners.

Yeah, it does apply, as box cutters killed a lot of people. Some nutcase with a gun kills 2 or 3 and the alarms ring out to disarm all citizens… if 'it' was about public safety, there would have been screaming about box cutters, and baseball bats and knives and … the list goes on. But it's not about public safety or the good of all, which has been perfectly clear for decades.

 

[scatt]

1. Your 'box-cutter' crack doesn't apply. Perhaps you should think instead of the two dozen or so firearms that the TSA confiscates every single week from persons and their carry-on bags as they go through the airport scanners.

2. Except for WWII, where have I written anything supporting American military intervention into other nations?

I hope you are not implying it is illegal to transport your firearms on airplanes (because it isn't).

Are all your beliefs written on this site?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yeah, it does apply, as box cutters killed a lot of people. Some nutcase with a gun kills 2 or 3 and the alarms ring out to disarm all citizens… if 'it' was about public safety, there would have been screaming about box cutters, and baseball bats and knives and … the list goes on. But it's not about public safety or the good of all, which has been perfectly clear for decades.

What you're doing is "cherry-picking", using one incident - as terrible as it was - to try to make a broad-brush statement...and so you are using a classic logical fallacy. That is why your claim doesn't apply.

Besides, box cutters are not designed with the specific intent to kill people, just like baseball bats and swimming pools and automobiles are not designed to kill people...but guns ARE designed with the intent to kill. Even most knives are not designed as killing weapons - most knives are tools, as opposed to swords, which are designed with the specific intent to kill.

 

[scatt]

box cutters are not designed with the specific intent to kill people

Neither are firearms.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I hope you are not implying it is illegal to transport your firearms on airplanes (because it isn't).

Are all your beliefs written on this site?

It's quite legal to transport firearms on airplanes...as checked baggage. But NOT as carry-on items (for the vast majority of citizens). And I'm sure you already knew that.

 

[scatt]

It's quite legal to transport firearms on airplanes

Yeah, transporting firearms on airplanes is legal.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Neither are firearms.

Riiiiiight. Let me guess: "Oh, no, they're not designed to kill, they're only meant to project a bullet out of the barrel at high velocities". Mm-hmm.

And alcoholic drinks were never meant for people to get drunk, cars were never meant for people to go from point A to point B a lot faster than on horseback, and the cow jumped over the moon.

Guy, that's the kind of excuse I'd expect from an 18 year-old kid fresh out of boot camp trying to play "sea lawyer". It only works in YOUR mind - anyone else with half a clue about life in general knows it for the bovine excrement that it really is.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yeah, transporting firearms on airplanes is legal.

But NOT as carry-on items...which is the entire point. Oh, wait, I forgot - logic and reality aren't factors in your arguments.

 

[scatt]

Riiiiiight.

No, guns are not designed with the specific intent to kill people. Plus, telling me that the overwhelming majority of gun owners not killing humans means they are misusing their firearms is silly.

NOT as carry-on items.

Except the ones that do carry on loaded firearms. They are usually air marshals though.