Forums → WEPR → Why does America rank first in school shootings?
| 97 | 28554 |
I thought this was a very good question. I want to know what you all think the reasons for this are. Article here
- 97 Replies
@deathbewithyou, I don't even think that all those things you mentioned really are reasons behind school shootings. They can have an influence, as do many other things, but that doesn't make it a reason. And partydevil is right, it doesn't explain why America is on top in that matter.
I personally don't have a real explanation for that; but since in America you can get shot for an overtaking maneuver, I suspect it having to do with a certain mentality...
I am a tad surprised about America ranking first.
The US is second in national rates of deaths by firearm, with 11.3 deaths per 100,000 in total. Of these, 6.4 per 100,000 were using their gun to check themselves out, with 4.4 using a gun to kill somebody else. Only Albania was higher, with a homicide rate of 17.6 per 100,000. Most of Western Europe is below 1 per 100,000, including the UK, with a homicide-by-firearm rate of only 0.1. Some would suggest that this is related to the number of weapons of gun per capita
Admittedly, that report is a little old now, but at least the figures still stand to some degree. I understand that it's not directly related to the current topic but it does make the school shootings thing a little less surprising.
Here is a more recent one, on Wikipedia. Still has nothing on school shootings though... And seems to America at a less rate, although it just counts homicides with firearms.
Well I found a little bit to work off of. I think Ill look a little more before I make any statements further.
After looking it over a little bit more, it would look like America has the highest frequency (Going off of 2011) only counting gun violence rather than other attacks, however it only had 9 fatalities in 8 attacks, with 0 fatalities in three attacks. Other countries had far less frequency, but often more fatalities, one of the only other attacks in 2011 was an attack in Brazil that left 13 dead, more than all of America's combined.
So to recap, America has a higher frequency but often has less fatalities per attack, in almost all years. Some big numbers stick out in every country (For example, the Virginia Tech killed 32, the largest on the list). Europe has less frequent, but typically with greater fatalities. So it would seem that (because of maybe?) America has the highest frequency, but when it happens it is typically only 1-3 fatalities with many ending with 0 fatalities, with places like Europe having more fatalities per attack but less attacks.
So to recap, America has a higher frequency but often has less fatalities per attack, in almost all years. Some big numbers stick out in every country (For example, the Virginia Tech killed 32, the largest on the list). Europe has less frequent, but typically with greater fatalities. So it would seem that (because of maybe?) America has the highest frequency, but when it happens it is typically only 1-3 fatalities with many ending with 0 fatalities, with places like Europe having more fatalities per attack but less attacks.
so to say it very bold:
america has more dumb ***** walking around shooting. and the chanch of getting hit is greater.
but in europe when it happens. it happens good.
btw looking at europe:
half of it happens in germany. there maybe is some connection whit usa and germany that causes it to happen more often.
but in switzerland about every household has atleast 1 gun aswell.
and there are no school shootings there.
something to think about, no?
Another interesting thing I found out examining them more is that a good part of the worse ones in America where actually schools being shot...By adults. For example, the Amish school shooting (6), done by a random milkman (Who wasn't even Amish), University of Huntsville shooting (It was a professor, 3) and the Northern Illinois Univesrity Massacre (6, former student).
So basically America has a greater frequency, but they usually have less fatalities and many of the ones with greater fatalities are actually done by adults. Another third of a time, zero people are injured, and a good amount of the time the killer commits suicide.
Admittedly, that report is a little old now, but at least the figures still stand to some degree. I understand that it's not directly related to the current topic but it does make the school shootings thing a little less surprising.I don't really have time to construct a full response to this thread, so lemme just pick at these statistics.
It's pretty rare that you find a gun crime/fatality study that straight-up admits that it considers gun-based suicide in its final numbers. The reason is pretty clear: It takes a person who's pretty freakin' dedicated to a cause to even try to spin an argument that guns are a notable causal factor in suicides.
Wow. That is horrible.
So you are saying that it isn't the man who decided that he wanted to kill a bunch of people's fault that he killed a bunch of people? He didn't do it on his own free will? No, it must be the person who gave him the weapon. Since that is logical?
It may have been poorly said, or it may've just been explained with some broad general terms. Me thinks that what was meant is that the person who just haphazardly leaves fire arms and ammunition (and/or loaded already) lying around their house in an easy to reach place is partially at fault. It wasn't meant that the owner of said firearm was solely to blame while the shooter is automatically absolved of all connection with the incident. If you enable someone, then you are partially to blame for what you enabled them to do. Knowing you and how you take everything so literally, I'll try and add a little bit more that would otherwise be understood by any normal person. Any one who owns anything dangerous be it machinery, animal, or otherwise has the responsibility of regulating the access to said item and ensuring that it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. Hypothetically speaking, if a military tank driver were to leave his tank running while he went into a store to get a drink and a person were to drive off with his tank, then both of them would be responsible to some degree for the damage caused by said tank. ...And now I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you're thinking "OH HO!!! Now what if someone were to somehow sneak into a military base and hijack such a tank after all sorts of security measures had been implemented?!?!!? THEY'RE BOTH STILL GUILTY!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"... <--- this is one of those moments I shouldn't have to expound on something, but will have to b/c I'm certain you're just going to go there if I don't... If you have done your part to secure the fire arm in a manner that would keep it out of harm intending hands, then you have done your part. You're not to blame if someone somehow manages to break into a gun safe and/or break into something that is reasonably safeguarded. If you negligently leave a gun case wide open instead of locking it... then, your kid shooting people with your guns is your fault, AND[i] it is his/her fault too. One's fault is enabling the other, and the other's fault is the action committed. Is it the part where two people can be at fault for something only one of them did, that's got you hung up?
Let's say that a scientist has a specimen of some really nasty infectious disease that's been practically eradicated from the human population in a vial in his lab's fridge (but the human population is still quite susceptible to it). One day he takes said vial out of the fridge and takes it with him. He IS the one responsible for keeping it secure. He leaves it sitting out on a lab bench unattended. Another person in the lab who recognizes the vial and its killing potential decides to steal it. He then goes on to orchestrate the setting free of the contagion and thus the mass killing/murdering of millions of people. Who is to blame here? Well clearly only one person can be blameable! Clearly the person who set it free is a murderer, but the person who was charged with keeping such a weapon secured should get off scott free! I would say that is wrong. If you're going to leave such deadly toys lying around, then you're to blame just as much as the one pulling the trigger for enabling it to happen. Your crime is one of gross negligence. If you don't see negligence as a crime or something to be looked down upon, then you're just not going to understand anything I've said all... and we're just wasting time.
You don't really think about it, but it's attached to liberalism! "You can do everything, just be yourself!"
Someone's freedom can harm Your freedom, coz what you refuse to do someone will take it like its right to do!
RIP for all those victims whos never should've became victims!
You don't really think about it, but it's attached to liberalism! "You can do everything, just be yourself!"*seethes with rage* Fu- No, Stephen, don't swear, don't give in to it. Screw off. Being a liberal (which I am **** proud of) doesn't lead to school shootings. Parents who can't lock their cabinets and students who were bullied do.
First of all it is America there are millions of people living in that country and there are tons of poor people that are angry and have guns. It's America everything you can think about happens there good and bad things. Also other countries seem like they have there citizens not angry that much. America has alot of stress in it so these things will happen.
@44Flames, these things don't just happen.
By killing a kid, that brings you no good. You don't know what the kid will do in the future, and has done nothing to you now.
*seethes with rage* Fu- No, Stephen, don't swear, don't give in to it. Screw off. Being a liberal (which I am **** proud of) doesn't lead to school shootings. Parents who can't lock their cabinets and students who were bullied do.
I dont think so. And i dont think that a good liberalist should be angry of anyone else opinion...
Just to see clear: sadly most of the young generation doesn't raised culturally by parents but the expectations of society. Parents cannot really change these things, like you said locking their cabinets! There's alyways another way to get what someone planned to do when thinks its the only right thing to do! I didnt say liberalism is bad, just theres too many - as it seems - who would need more guidance to have liberalism in the good way!
And i dont think that a good liberalist should be angry of anyone else opinion...
Oh, so now a "good liberal" is just going to lie down and accept that you're practically blaming their political views for a school shooting where the perpetrator was bullied and he was somehow able to get a gun? Geez! You know, this is the thing about many conservatives. They have a "holier-than-thou," extremely patronizing tone. It is extremely unbecoming of you to attempt and define how a liberal should act.
I didnt say liberalism is bad, just theres too many - as it seems - who would need more guidance to have liberalism in the good way!
Why don't you teach us then, on how a "good liberal" should act! You OBVIOUSLY have some great, unknown knowledge on how we should. So please, O Bringer of Wisdom, why don't you bestow on us your teachings? Teach us the ways of true liberalism.
Anyways...
The reason that we have so many school shootings is because of our attitude toward bullying. In the workplace, in public, in government, this behavior is not condoned. So why is it, in schools, bullies can practically get away with everything? When I had problems with a bully last year, I found the school extremely unhelpful and lackadaisical in following up with punishments that they have according to their guidelines. The school needs to become more adept at punishing students. I feel that as a whole we are afraid schools will do the parenting for us, but in some cases we need the schools to take charge.
Thread is locked!