School shooting UK style
-
I think Guy's answer is the right approach in schools. As for society itself, it could be impossible.
Well that is not a bad idea. But also, you know, guns are pretty efficient killing machines and easy to get hold of.
-
I am not suggesting shotguns be banned, so not asking you that, but following on from the last thread, where I asked you what it is that makes the perpetrator not stop and think at that critical moment, with the way this story played out: But as you say you are not a psychologist, neither am I, and I doubt any supposedly qualified person does, we just dont know what makes people tick to this extent. Perhaps we need a big study into the history of gun crime perpetrators, nature and nurture, and see if there is anything identifiable that can be changed.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Perhaps we need a_nother_ big study into the history of gun crime perpetrators, nature and nurture, and see if there is anything identifiable that can be changed.
I fixed your statement for you. Yeah sure, throw more tax-payer money at it. If you do that enough nobody will have enough money to buy guns or ammo because they're paying taxes to fund yet another pointless study. In the end, a "study" results in nothing more than a collection of the most agreed upon theories and conjecture as to why someone acts the way they do. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass. If psychology/psychiatry actually worked, we wouldn't have a bunch of drugged-to-the-moon crazy people running around. It's all bullsh|t.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Perhaps we need a_nother_ big study into the history of gun crime perpetrators, nature and nurture, and see if there is anything identifiable that can be changed.
I fixed your statement for you. Yeah sure, throw more tax-payer money at it. If you do that enough nobody will have enough money to buy guns or ammo because they're paying taxes to fund yet another pointless study. In the end, a "study" results in nothing more than a collection of the most agreed upon theories and conjecture as to why someone acts the way they do. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass. If psychology/psychiatry actually worked, we wouldn't have a bunch of drugged-to-the-moon crazy people running around. It's all bullsh|t.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
It's all bullsh|t.
Really? That is rather a sad viewpoint. The idea that we can not understand ourselves and lead better lives is not one I agree with or want to agree with.
-
I am not suggesting shotguns be banned, so not asking you that, but following on from the last thread, where I asked you what it is that makes the perpetrator not stop and think at that critical moment, with the way this story played out: But as you say you are not a psychologist, neither am I, and I doubt any supposedly qualified person does, we just dont know what makes people tick to this extent. Perhaps we need a big study into the history of gun crime perpetrators, nature and nurture, and see if there is anything identifiable that can be changed.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
I am not suggesting shotguns be banned, so not asking you that, but following on from the last thread, where I asked you what it is that makes the perpetrator not stop and think at that critical moment, with the way this story played out:
Could it be, like I said, that a shotgun is more easily lethal when used impulsively than a knife? And impulsivity is an important component of action in mental illness? And most people don't carry through with things if they have to think about it too hard or it's too difficult to do? For fuck sake...
-
No, as I said in another thread, that’s correlation, not causation. :laugh: Should we just repeat verbatim the last discussion? Sounds typical. You can’t defend, so you make a new thread and repeat argument. Tiresome. Plenty of peer reviewed data that removing lethal devices like guns from easy access reduces completed homicide and suicide. Try googling that fact instead. :rolleyes:
It isnt even not causation, it is not non causation too. The fact is guns have nothing to do with murder rate. The reality is there are many ways to kill, the tool used is irrelevant when it comes to reducing the number of people killed. Top 10 Common Methods of Suicide[^] "In the US ... we experience 11,000 self-inflicted deaths per year, and the UK: 7,000" So a quarter the population, yet over half as many suicides. So a country with tight gun control has a higher suicide rate.
Sablerz wrote:
removing lethal devices like guns from easy access reduces completed homicide and suicide
is therefore simply disproved. Now, where is your 'plenty of peer reviewed data'?
-
It isnt even not causation, it is not non causation too. The fact is guns have nothing to do with murder rate. The reality is there are many ways to kill, the tool used is irrelevant when it comes to reducing the number of people killed. Top 10 Common Methods of Suicide[^] "In the US ... we experience 11,000 self-inflicted deaths per year, and the UK: 7,000" So a quarter the population, yet over half as many suicides. So a country with tight gun control has a higher suicide rate.
Sablerz wrote:
removing lethal devices like guns from easy access reduces completed homicide and suicide
is therefore simply disproved. Now, where is your 'plenty of peer reviewed data'?
I don’t think you understand correlation vs causation. Zambia has 50 times the guns and bullets and 50 times the murder rate. Therefore it’s the guns. That’s your dumb arguments, but in reverse. My position is easy to find on Google. My guess is you already did but want me to post specific articles for you to nit pick. Nah. That’s not how the scientific literature works. You can easily find consensus opinions yourself. Later gator!
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
I am not suggesting shotguns be banned, so not asking you that, but following on from the last thread, where I asked you what it is that makes the perpetrator not stop and think at that critical moment, with the way this story played out:
Could it be, like I said, that a shotgun is more easily lethal when used impulsively than a knife? And impulsivity is an important component of action in mental illness? And most people don't carry through with things if they have to think about it too hard or it's too difficult to do? For fuck sake...
Did you read the story? This school kid had a shotgun, therefore had the 'impulsivity' you talk of, and yet did reflect and not carry out a mass shooting.
Sablerz wrote:
For f*** sake.
So, for fucks sake back at you: Read the story, for fucks sake. ;P
-
Did you read the story? This school kid had a shotgun, therefore had the 'impulsivity' you talk of, and yet did reflect and not carry out a mass shooting.
Sablerz wrote:
For f*** sake.
So, for fucks sake back at you: Read the story, for fucks sake. ;P
-
I don’t think you understand correlation vs causation. Zambia has 50 times the guns and bullets and 50 times the murder rate. Therefore it’s the guns. That’s your dumb arguments, but in reverse. My position is easy to find on Google. My guess is you already did but want me to post specific articles for you to nit pick. Nah. That’s not how the scientific literature works. You can easily find consensus opinions yourself. Later gator!
No it isnt my argument. My argument is that there is no correlation OR causation between guns and murder. The tool doesnt cause murder, and the tool used doesnt correlate with murder. (or suicide) Get it?
Sablerz wrote:
My position is easy to find on Google
Yet now you have been asked to produce your data you cant.
-
And he had a trigger, yet didnt use it, thus refuting your 'guns = impulsive = murder' theory.
-
No it isnt my argument. My argument is that there is no correlation OR causation between guns and murder. The tool doesnt cause murder, and the tool used doesnt correlate with murder. (or suicide) Get it?
Sablerz wrote:
My position is easy to find on Google
Yet now you have been asked to produce your data you cant.
-
And he had a trigger, yet didnt use it, thus refuting your 'guns = impulsive = murder' theory.
-
Did yo uread it? "Excluding a large proportion of the general population from gun possession is also not likely to be feasible. Behavioral risk-based approaches to firearms restriction, such as expanding the definition of gun-prohibited persons to include those with violent misdemeanor convictions and multiple DUI convictions, could be a more effective public health policy to prevent gun violence in the population." It states behaviour issues are behind murder. Not outlawing guns, but outlawing certain types of individual from owning guns. This certainly reflects the US, where guns are easy to get, and hence figure in many murders. But take away the guns and that disturbed person will buy a 12 inch carving knife, readily available, or a machete, or samurai sword, and commit murder. All you have done is change the tool. You have not fixed the cause.
-
Well that is not a bad idea. But also, you know, guns are pretty efficient killing machines and easy to get hold of.
Swords are very effective you know. Look how easy samurai swords are to buy.
-
Because populations are not made of individuals... Yeah, right. /sarcasm
-
Did yo uread it? "Excluding a large proportion of the general population from gun possession is also not likely to be feasible. Behavioral risk-based approaches to firearms restriction, such as expanding the definition of gun-prohibited persons to include those with violent misdemeanor convictions and multiple DUI convictions, could be a more effective public health policy to prevent gun violence in the population." It states behaviour issues are behind murder. Not outlawing guns, but outlawing certain types of individual from owning guns. This certainly reflects the US, where guns are easy to get, and hence figure in many murders. But take away the guns and that disturbed person will buy a 12 inch carving knife, readily available, or a machete, or samurai sword, and commit murder. All you have done is change the tool. You have not fixed the cause.
-
Got anything else to do? :)
No. :sigh:
-
No. :sigh:
So I was thinking, what is the act of shooting, what does it represent? Power. Choice. Self assertion. Therefore is it that these acts are carried out by people who have no voice, no control over their lives, no sense that they DO have choices, and can make decisions? Story today of a 14 year old kid who hung himself because his parents took his phone away. This is him losing control. Losing choice. Not making a decision. Just a thought, but what do you think? (since you have nothing to do and this is an interesting discussion :) )
-
Now you’ve seen I’m right and are changing the goalposts again from impulsivity to the feasibility of control. No.
You dont get it do you? Let me repeat, the 'tool is not the cause of murder and the tool used does not correlate with murder'. Take away the gun and the murderer will use another tool. Therefore gun control will not work in the US, as it hasnt worked elsewhere.
-
You dont get it do you? Let me repeat, the 'tool is not the cause of murder and the tool used does not correlate with murder'. Take away the gun and the murderer will use another tool. Therefore gun control will not work in the US, as it hasnt worked elsewhere.
