Forums → WEPR → Why does America rank first in school shootings?
| 97 | 28553 |
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
But don't guns make it easier for people to achieve that goal? I mean, sure, you can use knives too - but if there are lots of people around then a gun is infinitely more effective and can kill a lot more people.
but if there are lots of people around then a gun is infinitely more effective and can kill a lot more people.
It may appear this way but in reality it's not so. Bombs can be built pretty easily. Anyone that's been through physics could build one. And they can be built with whatever. Gasoline, gunpowder etc. pretty much anything that burns. Put it in someplace small (like a bus) and you can reek some havok.
This may be a little sick but really for maximum potential i would use a car. I mean think about it, all someone would have to do is drive a car into a school bus or simply onto a crowded campus. In driver's ED i remember a cop saying "Cars are really deadly weapons. If i pull out my gun i have fifteen tries to kill students in this classroom, (their was sixty of us) if i drove a car through i could kill a third of you."
Both cars and gasoline are much more accessible to most teens then guns or ammo.
But don't guns make it easier for people to achieve that goal? I mean, sure, you can use knives too - but if there are lots of people around then a gun is infinitely more effective and can kill a lot more people.
We are not talking about the efficiency ratings of weapons used in schools, we are talking about why this happens. Killing an innocent human using any weapon is wrong and thats what America needs to be striving to deduce the amount of harmful acts that possess the minds of teenagers.
Well, yes, but my point is that guns are more efficient and thus a better choice to carry out such attacks (for whatever reason) - and so, if there were less of them around, there'd be less attacks and less fatalities.
Anyway, I think we've already explored many of the reasons and motives behind school shootings, so I was just trying to spin the conversation off down another avenue for a while. Also, while the majority of school shootings are carried out by teenagers, it's important to remember that they're not the only ones who's minds are 'ossessed of harmful acts'.
Alright I'll follow you on this.
Teenagers aren't ALL in the wrong that is correct. Like I stated earlier, it's their raising. I am not aware of how old you are, but I am in the generation that has been raised improperly. Thankfully, I have been raised well. But, many others missed out of a solid set of parents which influence them at young ages.
Other way around. Repurposing all currently public weapons for military use only. No guns at home at all. Fully restricted from general public.
I know how Avorne meant it, it's just that around here soldiers take their army weapons back home together with their private equipment. What you say is there are army arsenals where weapons are stored until soldiers come back from weekend? (or can't soldiers in America go home at weekends?). Also that they have to give it back when they're finished with army service.
Teenagers aren't ALL in the wrong that is correct. Like I stated earlier, it's their raising. I am not aware of how old you are, but I am in the generation that has been raised improperly. Thankfully, I have been raised well. But, many others missed out of a solid set of parents which influence them at young ages.
I'm in the same generation as you are and, frankly, it doesn't particularly aid our age group if you go around describing them all as being raised improperly - rather, it alienates them and could lead to a number of self-fulfilling prophecies about their ability and behaviour, thanks to labelling and the likes. Also, I noticed you said 'set of parents', so I'm assuming that you believe the growing number of lone-parent families might have something to do with the improper raising of children in society as it stands? How do you propose we deal with this then? Assuming that it's one of the root causes of improper behaviour and therefore affects the likelihood of school shootings (of course, I'm not really sure those two things follow, bad behaviour doesn't equate to violent crime). Should more support be given to low-income or lone-parent families in order to better the behaviour of children? What kind of support - financial (to make up for the lower income that lone parent families often have) or institutional (as a substitute/additional parental figure)? Even if this support is in place though... what are the odds that it'll truly help? Y'see, bad parenting is bad parenting, and there can be 'sets of parents' that are extremely bad just as there are lone parents who're extremely good.
Wait a second, how did we get so off topic? To be honest i think part of the problem for having single parents is the media's fault. I mean think about for a second. How many TV shows can you think of that have a heavy focus on hooking up and etc. How many "reality" that show how families should function. Chances are none do. Single parents are a problem now more then ever because it's simply acceptable.
We are off topic though.
I don't think we're off-topic - I'm interested in the root causes of school shootings (which is very much part of the 'why' in the topic title) and one factor that someone identified was 'home life and upbringing' so I wanted to look into that a little further.
Here in my country, no one can have guns under 18 years of age. Everyone need to pass a weapon exam - including psychology test - if they want a weapon! But you can get weapon on the "black market"
I didnt finish, just mistaken. So you can get a gun somhow if you really need one! But if you wanna kill someone, theres a lot more possibilities: simply knife or explosives etc. But here we have no school shooting at all or anything else brutal acts like these things. So how it could be? Really depends on availabe to having a gun? I dont think so...
An example: In Texas, you can own a gun at 16. Enough said.
Wiki says Texas is 18 for rifles and shotguns, 21 for handguns (unless active military, then 18).
In WI it's legal for someone as young as 14 to possess a rifle/shotgun for hunting without adult supervision if they passed a safety course.
simply knife or explosives etc
A knife dosen't seem very effective. You'd need to be very close and strong enough to do damage. With a gun, you can be 10ft+ away and simply pull a trigger. Explosives could work, but very few people under 18 would be able to make an effective one or have access to premade ones like semtex or c4.
Thread is locked!