Ohio, Chardon High School shooting, 3 dead.



Page 1 of 11 [ 154 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Aug 12, 2009
Posts: 3341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

27 Feb 2012, 9:52 am

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/27/sh ... ?hpt=hp_t1

It is just reported...not much is known yet about the details.

School shootings always make me wonder WTF!!

Jojo


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Jan 06, 2011
Posts: 18751
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2012, 10:42 am

For some reason the media just loves stuff like this...I mean it's fine that they get the news out but if you've even been in a school shooting they get pretty annoying after a while with their camras, questions and assumptions/exaggerations they make just so the story makes the national news....sorry, it just angered me when something similar happened in my school except it was not a student and the media ended up being all up in everyones faces.

Anyways this is sad.


_________________
Winter is coming.


jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Aug 12, 2009
Posts: 3341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

27 Feb 2012, 11:08 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
For some reason the media just loves stuff like this...I mean it's fine that they get the news out but if you've even been in a school shooting they get pretty annoying after a while with their camras, questions and assumptions/exaggerations they make just so the story makes the national news....sorry, it just angered me when something similar happened in my school except it was not a student and the media ended up being all up in everyones faces.

Anyways this is sad.


I remember when News anchor/reporter Connie Chung was told to never come back to Oklahoma by its Govenor after the Oklahoma City bombing cause all the reporters were told not to speak to any victims at the scene. She crossed that line and spoke to an injured victim and was very forward about it. She was fired shortly after being told she could come to Oklahoma anymore.

I never been in a press swarm, but I bet it was really invasive for you. Kinda like insult for injury.

Jojo


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Jan 06, 2011
Posts: 18751
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2012, 11:09 am

jojobean wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
For some reason the media just loves stuff like this...I mean it's fine that they get the news out but if you've even been in a school shooting they get pretty annoying after a while with their camras, questions and assumptions/exaggerations they make just so the story makes the national news....sorry, it just angered me when something similar happened in my school except it was not a student and the media ended up being all up in everyones faces.

Anyways this is sad.


I remember when News anchor/reporter Connie Chung was told to never come back to Oklahoma by its Govenor after the Oklahoma City bombing cause all the reporters were told not to speak to any victims at the scene. She crossed that line and spoke to an injured victim and was very forward about it. She was fired shortly after being told she could come to Oklahoma anymore.

I never been in a press swarm, but I bet it was really invasive for you. Kinda like insult for injury.

Jojo


Luckily I did not get the worst of it, but yeah people including me were kind of pissed about it.


_________________
Winter is coming.


shartora
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Posts: 76

27 Feb 2012, 11:21 am

Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 146 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 69 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

So the neurologist was correct.


lightening020
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Jan 22, 2008
Posts: 657

27 Feb 2012, 11:32 am

shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


It is one of the main founding principles in America. The right to own a gun. If any citizen can have a gun, that puts things in perspective right away, especially in areas like the south and midwest where they do exercise their gun rights.

Criminals are going to have guns regardless. The UK has criminals with guns as well. Your country's law just leaves the law-abiding citizens in danger if the s**t hits the fan. In the US if a huge disaster natural or otherwise occurred, and mob mentality formed, having guns would save many lives. Its just because that isn't so right now, that there is a price to pay.

Mexico does not allow gun ownership. The criminals have the guns anyways and look at the violence there.



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Jul 08, 2011
Posts: 5082
Location: CT, USA

27 Feb 2012, 11:47 am

shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


I'd have to redo the statistics, as it's been a long while since I calculated them, but I remember figuring out Canada per capita had more people die in school mass shootings, and Canada's gun laws are tougher than in USA. And yes, Mexico, not much allowed for legal gun ownership, but you have drug cartels and the like running around going to literal war with the government.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Jan 06, 2011
Posts: 18751
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2012, 2:19 pm

shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


I don't think banning guns would really reduce violent crimes committed with guns...it would just prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing guns but I think violent criminals could find a way around that and still acquire guns to kill people with, but citizens would be left without the option to purchase a gun they could potentially defend them self with if need be. Also, gun free zones to me are just asking for people with mass killing on their mind to go for it.

Also this seems very recent so until there is more information and I can read up on suspected motives, if it actually was a student ect. before I form on opinion on what might have prevented this.


_________________
Winter is coming.


LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Aug 31, 2009
Posts: 1072

27 Feb 2012, 2:55 pm

This is very sad. May the person who died RIP. For those saying gun control should be tighter because of things like this: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Heck, I'm sure the average civilian could commit murder using their bare hands. The right to own a gun is one of the founding principles of the USA and is in the Constitution.

Sorry to get off-topic (/end rant). It's funny (odd) that this happened on a Monday, so I couldn't help but think of an old song, which I will now post solely as a tribute to the victims:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr3E6mNRxHU&list=PL9EBC3DAA77C35FF8&index=27&feature=plpp_video[/youtube]


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


Mithos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 21, 2012
Posts: 685
Location: Ponyville, Equestria.

27 Feb 2012, 3:04 pm

Screw the news. I'm sorry this happened though. It just tends to get annoying when the news keeps it running for weeks. I'm thinking by week 2, "This is STILL on?! LET IT GO, NEWS GUYS." Jesus H. Lewezuz.


_________________
{{Certified Coffeeholic.}}
I have Severe ADHD (Diagnosed), Tics and Mild OCD. [Fully Alert, Test Retaken.]
------------------------------
Your Aspie score: 128 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 72 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie


ProfumoAffair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: Feb 22, 2012
Posts: 57

27 Feb 2012, 3:32 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


I don't think banning guns would really reduce violent crimes committed with guns...it would just prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing guns but I think violent criminals could find a way around that and still acquire guns to kill people with, but citizens would be left without the option to purchase a gun they could potentially defend them self with if need be. Also, gun free zones to me are just asking for people with mass killing on their mind to go for it.

Also this seems very recent so until there is more information and I can read up on suspected motives, if it actually was a student ect. before I form on opinion on what might have prevented this.

Banning guns means only the outlaws have guns. Not banning guns means there are a lot more outlaws. I guess people just stick wax in their ears when they ignore the murder rate in the USA and its relation to guns.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Jan 06, 2011
Posts: 18751
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Feb 2012, 3:38 pm

ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


I don't think banning guns would really reduce violent crimes committed with guns...it would just prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing guns but I think violent criminals could find a way around that and still acquire guns to kill people with, but citizens would be left without the option to purchase a gun they could potentially defend them self with if need be. Also, gun free zones to me are just asking for people with mass killing on their mind to go for it.

Also this seems very recent so until there is more information and I can read up on suspected motives, if it actually was a student ect. before I form on opinion on what might have prevented this.

Banning guns means only the outlaws have guns. Not banning guns means there are a lot more outlaws. I guess people just stick wax in their ears when they ignore the murder rate in the USA and its relation to guns.


I don't know...last I checked guns don't make people turn into outlaws. I mean I highly doubt if I was to go out and buy a gun it would make me into a more violent person. I've even shot targets with a gun when I was out with some family like a year ago and it did not give me any violent urges. That said I admit I've broken a law here and there but nothing violent that would hurt people.

Also I don't think I have stuck any wax in my ears, I just think banning guns would pretty much ensure a law abiding citizen when faced with a violent criminal with a gun breaking into their house for instance will get shot. Guns can be used appropriately so they should not be taken from people who use them appropriately that just punishes the ones who do follow the gun rules. I do not think banning guns would reduce the frequency of violent crime. But that is just my opinion based on what I've seen, experianced, information I've looked up ect.


_________________
Winter is coming.


ProfumoAffair
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: Feb 22, 2012
Posts: 57

27 Feb 2012, 4:21 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


I don't think banning guns would really reduce violent crimes committed with guns...it would just prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing guns but I think violent criminals could find a way around that and still acquire guns to kill people with, but citizens would be left without the option to purchase a gun they could potentially defend them self with if need be. Also, gun free zones to me are just asking for people with mass killing on their mind to go for it.

Also this seems very recent so until there is more information and I can read up on suspected motives, if it actually was a student ect. before I form on opinion on what might have prevented this.

Banning guns means only the outlaws have guns. Not banning guns means there are a lot more outlaws. I guess people just stick wax in their ears when they ignore the murder rate in the USA and its relation to guns.


I don't know...last I checked guns don't make people turn into outlaws. I mean I highly doubt if I was to go out and buy a gun it would make me into a more violent person. I've even shot targets with a gun when I was out with some family like a year ago and it did not give me any violent urges. That said I admit I've broken a law here and there but nothing violent that would hurt people.

Also I don't think I have stuck any wax in my ears, I just think banning guns would pretty much ensure a law abiding citizen when faced with a violent criminal with a gun breaking into their house for instance will get shot. Guns can be used appropriately so they should not be taken from people who use them appropriately that just punishes the ones who do follow the gun rules. I do not think banning guns would reduce the frequency of violent crime. But that is just my opinion based on what I've seen, experianced, information I've looked up ect.
Just your opinion doesn't mean that guns give people power, and power corrupts. Soon as you give a man a gun, you have a problem.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 11, 2006
Posts: 3714
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

27 Feb 2012, 6:21 pm

Really? People have to use this incident as a cheap excuse to start soapboxing?

ProfumoAffair wrote:
Just your opinion doesn't mean that guns give people power, and power corrupts. Soon as you give a man a gun, you have a problem.
Prove it. An object doesn't give anyone a propensity for violence that doesn't already exist.

Quote:
Basic to the debates on gun control is the fact that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. Dealing with recidivism is key to solving violence.

71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.

64% had been convicted of a crime.

Each had an average of 11 prior arrests1.

63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories)2
.

Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus
http://www.gunmyths.com/2009/03/27/crime-and-guns/

shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.
Quote:
Fact: 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (i.e., not at gun stores or gun shows).
http://www.gunmyths.com/2009/01/04/myth-gun-shows-are-supermarkets-for-criminals/

There goes the bullshit notion that gun control works. And oh yeah, I guess you've never heard of Switzerland.

ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


I don't think banning guns would really reduce violent crimes committed with guns...it would just prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing guns but I think violent criminals could find a way around that and still acquire guns to kill people with, but citizens would be left without the option to purchase a gun they could potentially defend them self with if need be. Also, gun free zones to me are just asking for people with mass killing on their mind to go for it.

Also this seems very recent so until there is more information and I can read up on suspected motives, if it actually was a student ect. before I form on opinion on what might have prevented this.

Banning guns means only the outlaws have guns. Not banning guns means there are a lot more outlaws. I guess people just stick wax in their ears when they ignore the murder rate in the USA and its relation to guns.
Yeah because gun policies influence whether or not people choose to live a life of crime :roll:.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mar 08, 2007
Posts: 8916
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

27 Feb 2012, 7:08 pm

ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
ProfumoAffair wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
shartora wrote:
Probably repeating what's been said lots of times, but it's the price a nation pays for allowing guns to be available generally.

List of countries sorted by gun-related deaths shows the difference in a big way.

To use US and UK as an illustration

US 4.14/100,000 people killed by someone else
UK 0.41/100,000

So you are 10 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US as in the UK. Says a lot for strict gun control.


I don't think banning guns would really reduce violent crimes committed with guns...it would just prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing guns but I think violent criminals could find a way around that and still acquire guns to kill people with, but citizens would be left without the option to purchase a gun they could potentially defend them self with if need be. Also, gun free zones to me are just asking for people with mass killing on their mind to go for it.

Also this seems very recent so until there is more information and I can read up on suspected motives, if it actually was a student ect. before I form on opinion on what might have prevented this.

Banning guns means only the outlaws have guns. Not banning guns means there are a lot more outlaws. I guess people just stick wax in their ears when they ignore the murder rate in the USA and its relation to guns.


I don't know...last I checked guns don't make people turn into outlaws. I mean I highly doubt if I was to go out and buy a gun it would make me into a more violent person. I've even shot targets with a gun when I was out with some family like a year ago and it did not give me any violent urges. That said I admit I've broken a law here and there but nothing violent that would hurt people.

Also I don't think I have stuck any wax in my ears, I just think banning guns would pretty much ensure a law abiding citizen when faced with a violent criminal with a gun breaking into their house for instance will get shot. Guns can be used appropriately so they should not be taken from people who use them appropriately that just punishes the ones who do follow the gun rules. I do not think banning guns would reduce the frequency of violent crime. But that is just my opinion based on what I've seen, experianced, information I've looked up ect.
Just your opinion doesn't mean that guns give people power, and power corrupts. Soon as you give a man a gun, you have a problem.



Sweetleaf is correct.
I have several guns and I've never caused anyone a problem by having them. Same goes for all of the gun owners I know. The main reason I have them is because they are my obsession and always have been. Aside from that they give me the means to have an active role in my own personal security.

Aside from owning and shooting recreationally them they give the individual the means to protect themselves from the human predators of the world. During times of natural disaster or civil unrest and there’s not a cop to be found for miles they can be a definite asset.
You can rest assured that the unfortunate people that got caught up in the London riots wished they’d been armed. This is one tragically classic case of a government not allowing its citizens to protect themselves while at the same time not being able to provide them with protection.
Even during the best of times you cannot count on law enforcement protection because they have no obligation or capability to protect the individual. It’s hit or miss on whether you can be rescued in time.
There’s a saying that “When seconds count the police are only minutes away” that sums things up very truthfully.
In states and cities with strict gun control you have high violent crime rates for the above reasons and the fact that the predators of society can operate with less opposition. They, of course, get their weapons illegally. Making something desirable illegal automatically opens a black market and all the crime issues related to black markets gets added to the crime problem.
In contrast to that, the states and cities with the most lenient gun regulation society becomes more of a “hard target” and more of a risk to the predators.

Another common argument against private gun ownership is accidents.
When you take all of the other causes of death into account, aside from old age, you see that firearm related deaths are comparatively insignificant.

To be able to protect oneself against the predators of society is a basic human right.



Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 1 of 11 [ 154 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: