Any person using their brain would ask why kids were not mass killing kids decades ago.
|
1
point
1
point
I totally get the argument of what about if the killer is using knives, cars, and fire, however, these things have other uses than killing. They aren't solely used for killing whereas guns, they are. I'm not suggesting all guns should be taken away but the truth is decades ago it took a LOT more to kill that many people, when nowadays its 5 minutes and a machine gun. I would never suggest abolishing any and all kinds of firearms, just tone it down with the general public's access to such dangerous weaponry. You don't need a rifle to protect your home and family, a handgun would be more than enough (and they are significantly harder to kill that many people with, especially if people are running away) 1
point
I'm not suggesting all guns should be taken away You should. Don't give these psychopaths an inch. It could be your daughter who gets killed. You don't need a rifle to protect your home and family, a handgun would be more than enough Introduce these people to the concept of a balanced equation. Arming your family with a handgun comes at the price of arming the intruder with a handgun. 1
point
All countries have guns, it's how they're used that causes or solves the issue. For example, Japan and Australia have guns yet a low rate of mass shootings, because they're hard to get and then hard to keep. And yes, you're right, when I wrote this argument I wasn't thinking about the fact if you bring a gun to a fist fight the opposition could get the gun off the person, kind of thing. To be frank, guns are absolute fucking shit. Created solely for harming and killing other species and people and used in evil fucking ways. if I brought my emotions to this debate I would be screaming "ban guns" but if I were to thinking logically, as I try to. The problem isn's the actual gun, it's the laws and the way they are sold, attained etc. thank you for your argument, I haven't thought about it that way. Even though I can genuinely understand how, and why you attribute the mass killings to the social issues which disrupt family life and destroy the conditions where values, morals and principles can be established within the framework of a God fearing/God loving family unit I must disagree with your hypothesis . The social problems which you cite as the primary reason for the ongoing school massacres always existed. If we read and properly interpret our history books we will note that they did so to a much greater extent in past times. It is recorded throughout history that children lived in shocking squalor and even though they were subjected to domestic and state corporal punishment, I am unaware of any recorded incidents of peer on peer mass slaughter. Could this have been due to the lack of firearms and/or that the fight for survival left little, if any room in the minds of the starving and abused children of yesteryear to develop such deadly schemes? Until comparatively recently most households were poverty stricken and children were forced into a life of crime by manipulative adults such as the character Fagin in Charles Dickens Oliver Twist. I would attest that the mass slaughter has grown to be a cult among the spoiled and psychology disturbed youths of today. 2
points
Antrim, I would attest that the mass slaughter has grown to be a cult among the spoiled and psychology disturbed youths of today. This definitely seems to be the case. I think much of the problem is that, despite being spoiled, many of these kids are told they are disadvantaged. So on top of being spoiled, they are also envious and ungrateful. Sounds like a recipe for antisocial behavior to me. Until comparatively recently most households were poverty stricken and children were forced into a life of crime by manipulative adults such as the character Fagin in Charles Dickens Oliver Twist. There was some of that, but more often kids worked in the family business or on the family farm. It was not until the early 1900s that children became net consumers. Before that they produced more for the family than they consumed. This did not make them less poverty stricken, simply better supervised, more mature, and more useful therefore more valuable. They grew up in an environment that made them from a young age important to the degree they looked out for others, particularly their families. Could this have been due to the lack of firearms and/or that the fight for survival left little, if any room in the minds of the starving and abused children of yesteryear to develop such deadly schemes? Lack of firearms? No. Just because there are more guns now, does not mean they are more widely distributed. The percentage of people living in homes with guns is down from 50% in 1967 to 36% in 2016, but in that time, per capita gun violence has gone up. Over 50% of Americans lived in rural areas until after World War II. Rifles are like shovels in rural living. They are basic tools, and they were pretty standard. They are/were used to hunt, protect farm animals from predators, put down sick/injured livestock, protect a home that was a mile or more from the nearest neighbor, etc.. For many gun owners, particularly in urban areas, however, guns are not the same sort of critical tool, which I think changes the attitude about them, in the mind of some useless and irresponsible teen or tween who is looking for attention. Fight for survival? Probably. Significantly, living in smaller, less mobile communities made the need to be integrated with the community greater. This is where your point about being spoiled is so critical.Without being part of the reciprocal responsibility to each other, and the attendant requirement to be a useful person, some people simply don't internalize how valuable other people are, and how necessary they are to their own survival. Hi Marcusmoon, We must be aware that until comparatively recently the major towns and cities of most European, and perhaps American countries were teeming with children who were on the bread line and were, more often than not treated with contemptuous disregard. I am disappointed that someone like you has suggested that most of the children from penniless parents worked in the family business or on the family farm!!! In my youth 100s of 1000s of children in Belfast alone, had to steal to eat and were attired in garments bought from the rag and bone man, usually paid for with empty jam jars. Children working in the family business or on the farm were the privileged few. Bin hoking (a Northern Ireland term) by starving, feral children was a common sight well into the 1950s in many European towns and cities. These children became resentful and angry but channeled their aggression into improving their lot and very seldom vented their anger on their peers or society at large. Literally millions of children who were reared before the 1960s had common enemies, hunger and poverty. They had to rely on their wits, toughness and ingenuity just to stay alive. Such children were only as good as their last crust of bread as there was no guarantee that there would be another one. Generally speaking the vast majority of crime, violent or passive committed by children was so they could eat and/or clothe themselves. What I have described is unadulterated affluence when compared to the levels of poverty and depravity children had to suffer during the early 20th century and further back. The gratuitous slaughter of other children as a consequence of their terrible plight was unheard of. 1
point
Any person using their brain would ask why kids were not mass killing kids decades ago. Anybody using their brain would check this premise is correct before assuming it is correct. It is not correct. Mass school shootings have been happening for decades. They have however increased in both intensity and frequency during recent decades because of the increased lethality (and availability) of manufactured weapons. You talk about brains and yet you do not use your own. You appear to assume that saying stupid things in a rude way constitutes brain work. The problem today with school shootings has absolutely nothing to do with guns Shootings utilize guns. Guns are integral to shootings. because decades ago there were guns all over the place Yes, and people got shot, with guns. Guns shoot. Shootings require guns. Teens could easily get guns, and our schools were still very safe! WHY? If guns are the problem, why were they not a problem in schools decades ago? There was a growing problem of school shootings dating all the way back to the 1900's. The worst periods were from 1970 - 1999, then nowadays. To say school shootings were unheard of before, is false. To an intelligent person, the answer is not gun control, but an honest look at this immoral self love culture. These killers are created by broken families What burdens most families now, to cause them to break up? Mostly money. children feeling unloved Yes, and this happens when you have two parents who have to work all the hours in the universe just to afford a basic living. Regardless, many Western countries have a high proportion of single mothers and broken families, yet none have a shooting problem like the USA. insecurities, violent Hollywood movies Violence on TV and in video-games has no bearing on violence in real life. Movies, TV and games are forms of entertainment, proven to REDUCE depression, anger, and anxiety. If these were what caused school shootings, then why do most other developed countries with access to the same movies and games as America, not have these problems? I'll tell you why: guns. What kind of fool blames the weapon of choice rather than a culture creating these killers The fool who only looks like a fool to the actual fool. The Democrat Party's goal has always been about taking our guns No. It's about instituting common sense gun laws, which morons like you keep interpreting as people trying to "take your guns". one step at a time, as done in Liberal Europe And look at the results: far less violence! This gun control debate has nothing to do with saving lives Really? This is just retarded. You honestly think that people who want to provide sfaety in society are actually just lying so they can take away your precious guns for no other reason than to deprive you of guns? Fucking grow up and wise up. because drunk driver background checks in bars would save thousand more lives, and you hear nothing from them when it comes to alcohol Yes, people with car keys shouldn't be served alcohol. Yes, people who are drunk should be stopped from getting in their cars. And yes, guns should be restricted to licensed, capable, upstanding citizens with healthy minds. All of those things are possible, and preferable. They should all be instated. Gun crime, gun deaths, and drunk driving are ALL valid problems. ALL need addressed. It's all about taking our guns so a Big controlling Government can control the people Wise up. It's about stopping pre-school kids getting fucking massacred by some nutjob who GOT HIS GUN LEGALLY WITHOUT EVEN A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION. These school shooters all bought a gun legally. A car requires a license and a test. A gun requires JACK SHIT. It's obviously our culture To an extent. But again, many Western cultures have teh features you propose are the problem -- single parenthood, liberal culture -- and yet none have a gun issue like the USA. Might it be because they don't have AS MANY GUNS?? creating these soulless killers because it hardly ever happened before. What changed? Why were mass shootings in school not a problem decades ago? They were. Stop acting the Left wing Progressive fools, swallowing all this fake news and anti Gun lunacy. Use the brain in your head and try getting to the bottom of this problem so we might actually save the lives of future children .... What's your answer, taking away all guns that hold over 7 rounds of ammo? So you are ok with just seven children being killed? What do you do when the killer uses knives, poison, bombs, trucks, fire? Putting common sense restrictions on gun purchase, obviously, is the answer. How about addressing the core problem in this immoral self love culture whereby our children are sacrificed for convenience through No Restriction abortions, or abandoned by parents chasing after greener pastures. Look at the garbage Hollywood puts our for our teens to see, all in the name of money Why doesn't Europe have this problem? Our culture is not much different in these aspects. We have a moral problem in this nation since God was separated from our public. Try putting two and two together. It's not the gun! It most definitely is the gun. 0
points
They were. The gang violence of the 80's far eclipsed the school shootings, etc. of the past couple decades. The main things that changed since the early 60's that are relevant to school shootings are: - A smaller percentage of Americans own guns now than in the 60's. If access to guns were a factor, the reduction in percentage of Americans should have further reduced the rates of gun violence. This has not been the case, so we must look someplace other than guns. - A much larger percentage of Americans grow up in single parent households now than in the 60's. Kids, particularly boys, growing up without fathers in the house with them, are less likely to be apprenticed into responsible adulthood. Basically mass shootings are the ultimate in toddler style temper tantrums, and the acting out of tough guy movie fantasies that result from not seeing the mundane manifestations of manhood like paying bills, doing chores around the house, and taking up responsibility for the well-being of others, particularly the family. - A much smaller percentage of teenagers have jobs and contribute financially to their households now than in the 60's. In addition to giving kids something useful to do with their time, jobs are great for building responsibility and self-esteem, both of which are antidotes for the nihilism at the core of these shootings. - Adolescence is now as much as 10 years longer now than in the 60's. Extending the overlap between physical adulthood (which begins after puberty) and social childhood (which ends at financial independence) reduces the urgency to grow up and start looking out for other people. The assumption that childish selfishness is normal in the teens and twenties means insanely selfish actions are going to be more common. - Kids are less personally responsible for their own social issues now now than in the 60's. The philosophy of schools (and parents) has shifted away from making students responsible for their own self-esteem and for dealing with bullies to the schools and parents negotiating these issues for their kids. As a result of not learning to independently navigate the social landscape at young ages, many teens and tweens are without the required social skills, so they substitute with violence. - A much larger percentage of teenagers are on psychiatric medications now than in the 60's. We have come to assume that developing coping skills can be bypassed by outsourcing to pharmaceutical companies. Many of these psychotropic drugs have possible side effects that include violent outbursts and delusions. |
