pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 10 dead 20 wounded in school shooting  (Read 20907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: October 08, 2015, 10:43 »
+2
As discussed look at the stats, no it isn't because America is a bigger place. There are far more shootings disproportionately in America (per person). 

The reason so many shootings are going on in schools is that teenage boys go nuts for a few years. I am sure there would be a lot of young men in Europe killing people too if it was as easy as it is in America. Most European children don't have easy access to guns. That's the difference. Look at the eleven year old who shot the girl next door because she wouldn't let him see the puppy, an eleven year old (or many 13 or 14 year olds) have no idea about what it means to take a life. They are just full of hormonal rage, that boy could just get hold of a gun, that's all.

On the it's nutters that are the problem argument, good luck doing anything about that when the NRA prevents gathering stats about ex felons or mental patients retaining gun licenses.

ETA, sorry missed the last post I was replying to the one before


« Reply #76 on: October 08, 2015, 10:55 »
+1
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer link=topic=25919.msg432719#msg432719
..... I just don't let my anecdotal personal experiences outweigh the facts.....

Read my post properly. I said my studio is in Cadogan-square, I didn't say I lived there. Big difference. Well I suppose youre coming from something very dangerous then? funny but youre speaking of mutiple murders, drugs, prisons??

I thought you said earlier that London was so peaceful, nobody ever speaks about guns, knifes or anything. Oh well funny that.

Anyway the conversation is fruitless, people will still buy and own guns.

When did I say no one talks about guns? You live in one of the most peaceful least dangerous places in the world ever. Not only in the world today but in history.

What I am saying is I have seen crime and guns, but I am not letting my small personal experience outweigh the facts that I can easily look up from reputable sources before I flap my gums about a subject.

I was mugged so many times growing up I have lost count, often the muggers had knives. I never got stabbed, imagine if those young men had easy access to guns, you bet they would be carrying them if they could get them as easily/ cheaply as in the US. It is just so simple for things to get out of hand and a gun to go off when young men are waving them around. The gun changes everything.

« Reply #77 on: October 08, 2015, 11:13 »
0
Wrong-o. Mass shooting and gun ownership statistics are figured out by the number of shootings per 100,000 people, so adding all of Europe together wouldn't change a thing. America has more shootings per person because it has more guns per person. Really simple. The mass shootings you use as examples are exceptions to the rule.

correlation is not causation. If you go back, 50, 75, even 100 years in the US guns were even more prevalent and accessible to the average person, yet mass shootings were almost unheard of in those times. You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?

While these mass shooting are tragic, they are statistical outliers when compared to the whole. Mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the US. You are significantly more likely to die in a swimming pool then fall victim to a mass shooting. Being struck by lighting and being killed in a mass shooting are somewhat similar. Mass shootings are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.


« Reply #78 on: October 08, 2015, 11:21 »
0
if every single person has firearms, there would be lesser fire arms incidents around globe, i am pretty sure about that.
 but who would carry 1-2kg of danerous iron - i always rather prefer to carry 2 or 3 beer cans.
 :) :)


 there is no simple answer regarding this matter.

« Reply #79 on: October 08, 2015, 11:24 »
+1
"It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem. "

Has any one suggested this? I thought people were talking about control just like the ownership of say cars is controlled.



Shelma1

« Reply #80 on: October 08, 2015, 11:52 »
+5
Wrong-o. Mass shooting and gun ownership statistics are figured out by the number of shootings per 100,000 people, so adding all of Europe together wouldn't change a thing. America has more shootings per person because it has more guns per person. Really simple. The mass shootings you use as examples are exceptions to the rule.

correlation is not causation. If you go back, 50, 75, even 100 years in the US guns were even more prevalent and accessible to the average person, yet mass shootings were almost unheard of in those times. You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?

While these mass shooting are tragic, they are statistical outliers when compared to the whole. Mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the US. You are significantly more likely to die in a swimming pool then fall victim to a mass shooting. Being struck by lighting and being killed in a mass shooting are somewhat similar. Mass shootings are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.

There are 30,000 people killed by guns every year in the U.S. Pro-gun people like to break that down into the smallest pieces possible and pay attention to only one piece at a time. In this case you have broken out mass shootings, and you ignore the tens of thousands of other shootings which occur every single day. You also cherry pick one country, state or city which is an exception and use that as an example while ignoring the many more that form the rule. You really have to twist yourself into quite a knot to get around the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists when it comes to gun deaths.

« Reply #81 on: October 08, 2015, 15:02 »
0
can someone qoute me the text in the US constitution where it says that every man can carry a weapon? Please?

« Reply #82 on: October 08, 2015, 15:47 »
0
Wrong-o. Mass shooting and gun ownership statistics are figured out by the number of shootings per 100,000 people, so adding all of Europe together wouldn't change a thing. America has more shootings per person because it has more guns per person. Really simple. The mass shootings you use as examples are exceptions to the rule.

correlation is not causation. If you go back, 50, 75, even 100 years in the US guns were even more prevalent and accessible to the average person, yet mass shootings were almost unheard of in those times. You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?

While these mass shooting are tragic, they are statistical outliers when compared to the whole. Mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the US. You are significantly more likely to die in a swimming pool then fall victim to a mass shooting. Being struck by lighting and being killed in a mass shooting are somewhat similar. Mass shootings are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.

There are 30,000 people killed by guns every year in the U.S. Pro-gun people like to break that down into the smallest pieces possible and pay attention to only one piece at a time. In this case you have broken out mass shootings, and you ignore the tens of thousands of other shootings which occur every single day. You also cherry pick one country, state or city which is an exception and use that as an example while ignoring the many more that form the rule. You really have to twist yourself into quite a knot to get around the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists when it comes to gun deaths.

I guess I am guilty of breaking the types of shootings down as you've said. But I don't see why that is a big deal. The types of shootings, why, when and where really do matter. By lumping everything in together, it is designed to scare middle class people in nice neighborhoods that the dreaded gun plague could strike them at any second. The truth is, if your not a active gang member, involved in the drug trade or are unfortunate enough to live in one of several problematic US metros, your chance of getting shot is almost non-existent. A big portion of these gun deaths are criminals killing other criminals, that should be seen as a good thing, not a problem. Also, it includes people shooting other people in self defense. It includes police killing criminals as well. Depending on the statistics your looking at, many of the large figures you see passed around include suicides, which does not paint a very fair representation.

Unfortunately at times in my life I have lived in some of these problematic areas, and I frequently had to travel for periods of weeks at a time doing stock, leaving behind my wife and kids. If a criminal broke in they would be totally defenseless without a gun. A gun really levels the playing field in that type of situation. I know everyone will complain that this is totally anecdotal, and it is, but my life experiences have shown the importance of owning guns. I have been broken into several times and merely hearing the sound of the gun being cocked was enough to deter them each time. However, this may not be everyone experience and could of been a fluke but after that, guns are a 100% must in my life.

Going further, home defense is not really the point of the 2nd amendment anyway, it was really made to stop government tyranny. If you want to know how I came to that interpretation, all you need to do is read Thomas Jefferson writings who made it very clear exactly what the intention of the 2nd amendment really was. And yes, I know, I've seen the facebook meme pictures where they show a cheap shot gun next to a f-16 and a tank saying "if you think this can beat THIS, you are INSANE", however, I would like to remind the people who made that picture that the Taliban was successful in beating the full might of the US military with crappy half century old AK-47s and wearing rags in the mountains.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2015, 15:50 by bpepz »

ShadySue

« Reply #83 on: October 09, 2015, 07:01 »
+2
... You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?

Oh, I had no idea about Iceland, but I did find this perspective:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564
Where a culture and/or environment is likely to engender high levels of violence, why wouldn't you want gun ownership severely curtailed or banned?

Also, why would any society allow guns to be easily accessible to people on the Autism/Asperger's spectrum?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 07:07 by ShadySue »

« Reply #84 on: October 09, 2015, 08:40 »
+1
It goes much deeper than that. The gun is part of the American culture. Sam Colts famous singl action, the gun that " won " the west and all that, then followed up with the famous 1911 sem-auto, etc, etc. Big part of the American history. The western frontier made it even bigger.
How do you change that? How do you change the motto, " every American have the rights to defend themselves". Down in Texas, huge state, its about 99% for and 1% against.

This is so deep rooted its an impossibillity.

You don't have to have an arsenal of AK-47s and other semi-automatic weapons to defend your home and go hunting. If you are collector of guns, they need to be locked up, so kids don't have access.

I used to shoot skeet and trap with my dad. He collected guns and had several. They weren't locked up. They didn't need to be. He taught us respect for them, how to handle them, and we weren't allowed to touch them unless he was with us. Parents don't teach their kids that anymore.

They need to be locked up, away from children. ESPECIALLY when you have a mentally-challenged child in the home. And stricter gun measures need to be instituted...there is no way in he11 a person with ANY kind of mental issue should be allowed to buy a gun, let alone buying semi-automatics and stockpiling an arsenal in their homes. Period.

Lots of things have changed over time. It used to be against the law to be gay, and that is changing too. This isn't the wild west anymore, for most people. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, maybe, but that isn't the problem here.

As far as I know, nobody is asking for total denial of the right to bear an arm to defend yourself or go hunting. People are asking for stricter laws on purchasing the guns. But the gun folks can't even use common sense on that. It's their way or nothing at all.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 11:38 by cathyslife »

Shelma1

« Reply #85 on: October 09, 2015, 09:37 »
+1
... You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?

Oh, I had no idea about Iceland, but I did find this perspective:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564
Where a culture and/or environment is likely to engender high levels of violence, why wouldn't you want gun ownership severely curtailed or banned?

Also, why would any society allow guns to be easily accessible to people on the Autism/Asperger's spectrum?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts


Great article. What's a "fairly high rate of gun ownership"? Iceland has 30 guns per 100 people; the U.S. has 88, almost three times as many. In addition, so much about Iceland is different from the U.S.a relatively egalitarian society and laws that make if DIFFICULT to buy a gun.

bpepzif you're going to point to Iceland as an example, be honest with yourself about the low number of guns compared to the U.S., the more stringent requirements to own a gun, and the societal differences between the two countries. Would you be OK with destroying 2/3 of the guns in the U.S. and making getting a gun much more difficult? That sounds like a good start to me.

« Reply #86 on: October 09, 2015, 10:11 »
0
can someone qoute me the text in the US constitution where it says that every man can carry a weapon? Please?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

« Reply #87 on: October 09, 2015, 10:13 »
0
if every single person has firearms, there would be lesser fire arms incidents around globe, i am pretty sure about that.
 but who would carry 1-2kg of danerous iron - i always rather prefer to carry 2 or 3 beer cans.
 :) :)


 there is no simple answer regarding this matter.

That is why people flee to war zones. For safety. ::)

« Reply #88 on: October 09, 2015, 17:49 »
+3
News flash:

Today   JUST TODAY!!! two more fatal campus shootings in the gun-lovin' US of A:

In Flagstaff, Arizona:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/

In Houston, Texas:
http://abc13.com/news/campus-lockdown-lifted-following-deadly-shooting-at-tsu/1025113/

We must be nuts to put up with this.

dbvirago

« Reply #89 on: October 09, 2015, 19:54 »
+3
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.

The question is, What Changed? Why now?

Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.

So, what changed? Why now?

It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?

I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.

I'm just asking, what changed?

Anybody?

« Reply #90 on: October 09, 2015, 20:59 »
+2
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago.

...

 guns have always been available.

My answer would be this:

There are massive numbers of guns in America these days. Vastly more than were available 20-30 years ago. And because the NRA has forced a loosening of gun-control laws, it's much easier to get your hands on one, too.

PLUS young people, especially young men, are made increasingly insensitive to violence because of super-violent films, video games, etc.  These things didn't exist 20-30 years ago.

« Reply #91 on: October 09, 2015, 21:50 »
0
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

Having said that, I don't see a problem with strengthening the laws to make it more difficult to get a gun, especially for the crazies. All rights come with some restrictions. We have restrictions on speech; we can afford some more on gun ownership. But outright banning is wrong.

« Reply #92 on: October 09, 2015, 21:54 »
+1
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.

The question is, What Changed? Why now?

Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.

So, what changed? Why now?

It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?

I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.

I'm just asking, what changed?

Anybody?

I tell you what the difference is: Media Saturation. These mass killers know that they will be able to cause lasting pain greater than what they inflict directly because the media will cover it over and over and over. They know the media will make them famous and cause anguish in the society that they feel has wronged them. They are lone wolf terrorists with their own agendas. Like terrorists, killing is their message and the media helps them spread it.

« Reply #93 on: October 09, 2015, 22:13 »
+2
But outright banning is wrong.

Please tell me who in this country is talking about banning guns?

The only place I ever read or hear that is in the right-wing media and among activist groups, which have stirred up fear and panic among their target audience (low-information, easily frightened, gun-owning conservatives) with the scary-but-false story that "Obama is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They've been playing the gun owners for suckers with that line for 6.5 years now, ever since Obama became president. What on earth are they going to do to stir up the panic (and keep the frightened ones' $$$$ flowing into their coffers) when the next president takes office?  "Hillary is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ???

« Reply #94 on: October 10, 2015, 00:23 »
+1
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.

Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.

Having said that, I don't see a problem with strengthening the laws to make it more difficult to get a gun, especially for the crazies. All rights come with some restrictions. We have restrictions on speech; we can afford some more on gun ownership. But outright banning is wrong.


No one needs an arsenal of semiautomatic weapons to defend their home. Nor do you need that to hunt deer. And no one, that i have ever heard, is talking about banning guns. Funny how that story just seems to keep being repeated.

« Reply #95 on: October 10, 2015, 00:26 »
+1
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.

The question is, What Changed? Why now?

Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.

So, what changed? Why now?

It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?

I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.

I'm just asking, what changed?

Anybody?

I tell you what the difference is: Media Saturation. These mass killers know that they will be able to cause lasting pain greater than what they inflict directly because the media will cover it over and over and over. They know the media will make them famous and cause anguish in the society that they feel has wronged them. They are lone wolf terrorists with their own agendas. Like terrorists, killing is their message and the media helps them spread it.


I agree with you, that is certainly contributing to the problem.

« Reply #96 on: October 10, 2015, 01:27 »
+4
can someone qoute me the text in the US constitution where it says that every man can carry a weapon? Please?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thank you for quoting.
Please note there is a comma between the 2 sentences. And the sentence could be intrepretated as follows: To protect the free state, there should be a well organized militia, and therefore people can keep and bear arms.
A well organized militia is not what we see in the US.

The constitutional sentence actually breaks the triangle of power, and add a fourth element with power: The militia. To secure the state. it might be a good idea back then when the new free state was vunlerable to exploitation by feudal or war lords or commercial or religious interests.
Back then it was a regular mean of suppressors that they forbade anyone except the ruler to bear arms, and the sentence should be viewed in that light: So that people and the free state can continue to excist, it should be founded on the people, and their right to resist suppression by forming a militia.
In other words: Its a peoples right or duty to make a revolution and overthrow a supressor.
Thats sound and healthy enough and it often happens. The US constitution takes it a bit further, by writing down that its a right to bear and keep arms.
 It was necessary back then, not so anymore, when there IS an army and a police force.
Ok thats history. That said, USA has a sick gun cult culture. Yes, I said sick. It is sick in the way that they spew out extremely violent films, the next worse than the former, no self sensorship, all blood and splatter, the more the better. When thats not enough they infect people with virus, so they turn into zombies and therefor can be legally shot. So there can be a lot of shooting in the film. All that contrary to the heavy sensorship there is on sex and nakedness.
So its an accelerating spiral of violence, more violence and more guns, more visuals.
And put these visuals on the screens of lonely boys of lonely mothers in a exceedingly competitative society. When the boy hurts, and he wants revenge, because he cannot find a reasonable way to his goals, and he wants and to hurt someone back, he of course does the splatter/ zombie thing. Thats the popular choice on the screen.

BTW.. I own several guns (rifles and shotguns), they are used for hunting. But they could be used for protection if...., but Id rather call the police and also its not likely that anything happens in this peacefull corner of the earth.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 01:46 by JPSDK »

« Reply #97 on: October 10, 2015, 03:00 »
+3
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.

The question is, What Changed? Why now?

Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.

So, what changed? Why now?

It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?

I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.

I'm just asking, what changed?

Anybody?
You asked what changed?
I would answer, that the FATHERS in America has stopped taking responsibility.
Meaning they are under huge economical pressure to live out the american dream, achieving material goods, establishing themselves as owners of things, so they cannot bear the burden of settleling down and raise children and hence their sons are not tought the basics in managing "the force". Meaning every man and his son is a warrior and a killer and violence has to be held behind a screen of politeness and self restriction. It is the fathers that teach their sons that self restriction, and it has been so since the viking ages where everybody had a sword, and were tought when NOT to use it. Same with guns.

« Reply #98 on: October 10, 2015, 04:20 »
0
But outright banning is wrong.

Please tell me who in this country is talking about banning guns?

The only place I ever read or hear that is in the right-wing media and among activist groups, which have stirred up fear and panic among their target audience (low-information, easily frightened, gun-owning conservatives) with the scary-but-false story that "Obama is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They've been playing the gun owners for suckers with that line for 6.5 years now, ever since Obama became president. What on earth are they going to do to stir up the panic (and keep the frightened ones' $$$$ flowing into their coffers) when the next president takes office?  "Hillary is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ???

Shelma1 and half the people posting in this thread said specifically we should ban all the guns. So let's stop pretending that's not the end goal for some people.

On the other hand, I know banning guns is impossible. You'd need two-thirds of Congress, not just a majority, to agree to an amendment and then agreement by 38 of the 50 states. Not possible, at least not for a really long time. 

Shelma1

« Reply #99 on: October 10, 2015, 04:52 »
+3
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.

The question is, What Changed? Why now?

Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.

So, what changed? Why now?

It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?

I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.

I'm just asking, what changed?

Anybody?

There was an article recently in the Times that said mass shooters use previous shootings as a template for their actions.

But I think two things have changed. The first big one is the leadership and purpose of the NRA. From my understanding, it used to be an organization promoting responsible gun ownership. La Pierre turned it into something completely different, an organization married to gun manufacturers whose only goal is to sell as many guns as possible, and if millions of people die because of that, oh well, collateral damage.

The second is the browning of America. White men are becoming a smaller and smaller minority, and everyone else is clamoring for equality, so the white guys see their iron grip on power maybe someday loosening a bit. When a black man was elected President it really freaked them out. So the NRA and gun lobby plays on that fear. That's why you hear more and more about the Second Amendment..many of these people quite literally believe they'll have to overthrow the government soon, and even talk about starting a civil war if anyone dares pass stricter gun regulation.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 06:57 by Shelma1 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Back 2 school

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

0 Replies
1344 Views
Last post July 26, 2007, 11:19
by Dreamstime News
Back 2 school

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

2 Replies
1693 Views
Last post July 31, 2007, 17:41
by Freezingpictures
10 Replies
3695 Views
Last post January 21, 2010, 22:35
by donding
26 Replies
6293 Views
Last post June 01, 2010, 19:39
by Suljo
0 Replies
947 Views
Last post August 19, 2015, 03:18
by imagesbykenny

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results