age you can buy a gun

[psalms 91]

1. Actually, I was wrong. I had forgotten about another major shoot-up in Australia some years ago.

2. I thoroughly agree that the “solutions” I mentioned lack an element of practicality. That’s why I said, “Unfortunately, none will be implemented.” And I mentioned guns because that was a consideration in the topic.

3. With respect to bullying, a few things can be considered.

a) Many teachers (most teachers?) couldn’t care less if kids are being bullied. They probably enjoyed picking on weaker kids to some degree when they themselves were young. So who do they end up aligning with, psychologically?

b) As was pointed out, it is often the kid that finally defends himself or herself that gets into trouble.

c) Much of the time it’s even worse in fact. Bullies tend to act in concert, like a gang. So with the others around, one picks on the victim. If they are discovered fighting, both get a black mark. Next time, a different member picks on the victim. They get one black mark each. Who ends up with the most black marks and gets into big trouble? And when the gang testifies that the victim started a fight, who is going to believe the victim? And even if the truth is known, what teacher is going to side with someone who is generally weak and despised?

d) Not so long ago in my area, one kid was being repeatedly attacked. The school did nothing, even though it was well aware of the situation. Finally the kid could not take any more. He brought a knife to school in self defence. He had no intention of using it. He just showed it to keep the bullies at bay.

The police were called. The kid was treated like a criminal and hauled off. He was suspended from school. The bullies were treated as victims and offered psychological counselling.

Could anyone feign wonder if that traumatised, physically and mentally abused kid ends up doing something anti-social later in life? The answer is Yes – the rest of society; the rest of society (with the odd exception) would tut-tut and blame that person; how dare that person have such a deformed perspective of people like “us”?

And the bullies? They could well and up as pillars of that same society – the advancement to senior levels in most environments is facilitated by squashing weaker individuals on the way up.

==============================================================================================

And now for the lighter side.



I’d crash trying to fly it.



I’d miss.


I used to think that if I kept looking long enough, I’d find something I was good at.

Truth

 

[tango]

a) Many teachers (most teachers?) couldn’t care less if kids are being bullied. They probably enjoyed picking on weaker kids to some degree when they themselves were young. So who do they end up aligning with, psychologically?

b) As was pointed out, it is often the kid that finally defends himself or herself that gets into trouble.

c) Much of the time it’s even worse in fact. Bullies tend to act in concert, like a gang. So with the others around, one picks on the victim. If they are discovered fighting, both get a black mark. Next time, a different member picks on the victim. They get one black mark each. Who ends up with the most black marks and gets into big trouble? And when the gang testifies that the victim started a fight, who is going to believe the victim? And even if the truth is known, what teacher is going to side with someone who is generally weak and despised?

d) Not so long ago in my area, one kid was being repeatedly attacked. The school did nothing, even though it was well aware of the situation. Finally the kid could not take any more. He brought a knife to school in self defence. He had no intention of using it. He just showed it to keep the bullies at bay.

The police were called. The kid was treated like a criminal and hauled off. He was suspended from school. The bullies were treated as victims and offered psychological counselling.

During my schooldays the class bully was, for the most part, quite clever. He was known to be a troublemaker but generally smart enough to get other people to do his dirty work. His preferred approach was to turn the class against someone, and many people went along with him because they didn't want to be next in his sights.

When he decided it was my turn for his attention he made a serious mistake - he had a group form around me but left a chair inside the circle. It soon became clear to everyone in the group that if they got close enough they were going to take a very nasty injury - when it was one against maybe 15 I figured I was going to use the chair as a club against anyone who got within range. That was the time the people in the class figured they could go along with the bully but it would cost them very dearly if they happened to be in the way when someone fought back.

I was lucky enough to have parents who took it seriously, and the teachers took it seriously when I fought back hard enough to leave someone lying on the ground. Thankfully as a straight-A student known for never being in trouble over anything my word was credible, and the trouble stopped. It's always hard to know whether it was because of some form of intervention by teachers or because the bully lacked the guts to do his own dirty work and his former minions were afraid because they had seen what could happen if someone was cornered and fought back hard.

Could anyone feign wonder if that traumatised, physically and mentally abused kid ends up doing something anti-social later in life? The answer is Yes – the rest of society; the rest of society (with the odd exception) would tut-tut and blame that person; how dare that person have such a deformed perspective of people like “us”?

Not at all, especially given the way social media makes it ever-harder to escape bullies these days. Sadly whenever there's a news report of a teenager who committed suicide because of relentless bullying one has to consider just how much uglier the situation would have been if they decided they were going to take the bullies down with them, and how much uglier still if they decided "the system" had failed them and they were going to hit back at anything considered "the system".

Hence, the need to focus on the issue of how someone reached that stage in the first place rather than the issue of what tools they selected having reached it.

 

[psalms 91]

I agree in part, yes the root cause needs addressed but also so does anything that can cause mass casualties in such a short amount of time. Arming teachers is also a good step. It is called common sense and addressing as much as possible rather than singling on one favorite issue or trying to divert from what you dont like. A multifaceted approach is what is called for

 

[tango]

I agree in part, yes the root cause needs addressed but also so does anything that can cause mass casualties in such a short amount of time. Arming teachers is also a good step. It is called common sense and addressing as much as possible rather than singling on one favorite issue or trying to divert from what you dont like. A multifaceted approach is what is called for

The crucial thing is to make it as hard as possible to commit an atrocity in a school (or anywhere else for that matter) while also not infringing on the rights of the law-abiding.

The trouble is that legislation has a nasty habit of massively reining in the law-abiding while doing little to nothing to rein in those who would go and commit an atrocity. If you're not expecting to survive whatever it is you're planning, why would you care how many laws you break along the way?

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

The trouble is that legislation has a nasty habit of massively reining in the law-abiding while doing little to nothing to rein in those who would go and commit an atrocity. If you're not expecting to survive whatever it is you're planning, why would you care how many laws you break along the way?

Well these school shootings are not being carried out by shadowy underworld criminals, or organized crime, or street gangs. Its just regular insecure boys who usually happen to have access to lawfully obtained firearms.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

Well these school shootings are not being carried out by shadowy underworld criminals, or organized crime, or street gangs. Its just regular insecure boys who usually happen to have access to lawfully obtained firearms.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

And if this "regular insecure boy" is sufficiently determined to cause casualties that he goes to the trouble of taking Daddy's gun, what do you suppose he's going to do if the police come and take Daddy's gun away? Do you really think he's going to just shrug and figure he can't get back at whoever has caused him so much grief, or maybe visit the chemistry lab and cook up something nasty there, or look up recipes for pipe bombs on the internet, or take Mummy's big nasty kitchen knife to school?

Writing souls who are sufficiently troubled to want to go out and kill lots of people off as "regular insecure boys" isn't a particularly useful contribution to the discussion. Someone best described as a "regular insecure boy" is going to have social anxieties, wonder if people really like him, wonder if he's going to get himself a girlfriend, wonder if people are going to show up for his birthday party. A "regular insecure boy" doesn't go out shooting people.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

A "regular insecure boy" doesn't go out shooting people.

Yes they do. And/or themselves quite often too. 10th grade boy like this brought a gun to school and shot himself just a mile down the street from me last year. Happens all the time around the country. If the argument is that black markets exist for weapons so laws are pointless, then it is relevant that almost all of these school shooting incidents are carried out by isolated young men or boys who don't easily have access to that black market.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

Yes they do. And/or themselves quite often too. 10th grade boy like this brought a gun to school and shot himself just a mile down the street from me last year. Happens all the time around the country. If the argument is that black markets exist for weapons so laws are pointless, then it is relevant that almost all of these school shooting incidents are carried out by isolated young men or boys who don't easily have access to that black market.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

If by "shot himself" you're talking about a suicide attempt then you're talking someone far more troubled than regular insecurities. People have had insecurities since time began but most of us don't try and take our lives as a result. And if you're talking about suicide then gun bans are even more pointless because the person who wants to commit suicide can do it any number of ways. If someone is determined to take their own life it's probably preferable that they do it with a firearm, when compared to other methods such as jumping off an interstate bridge, playing chicken in their car with oncoming trucks etc.

And as I said before, if you're talking about an extreme version of an "isolated young man" (again, there's a world of difference between someone who doesn't have very many friends and someone who decides to go out and kill people), if you make it so they can't lay their hands on a firearm they'll find someone else to commit their atrocity. The problem is the desire to harm others rather than the specific tool used to harm others.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

If by "shot himself" you're talking about a suicide attempt then you're talking someone far more troubled than regular insecurities.

So what? A lot of teenagers walk around feeling like everyone hates them. The extent to which a feeling like that is "regular" is beside the point.

And if you're talking about suicide then gun bans are even more pointless because the person who wants to commit suicide can do it any number of ways.

That's true, except 90% of suicide attempts with a firearm are successful, while 90% of suicide attempts with other methods are unsuccessful. There are 21000 firearm suicides each year. Overwhelmingly white people with access to a firearm in the house. About 500 firearm suicides each year are children.

This is relevant because with hundreds of firearm suicides each DAY in our country, sometimes an angry person decides to take out others with them.

if you make it so they can't lay their hands on a firearm they'll find someone else to commit their atrocity. The problem is the desire to harm others rather than the specific tool used to harm others.

Why do you assume it can only be one of those factors? Gun access OR hostility is a false dilemma. Obviously it's both (and more) and mass killing children in a school is a lot harder without a firearm.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

So what? A lot of teenagers walk around feeling like everyone hates them. The extent to which a feeling like that is "regular" is beside the point.

It's very much the point. If teenagers thinking everyone hated them were the problem the country would be knee deep in blood. It's a degree of scale, as with so much else. But if you really can't differentiate between a bit of normal teenage angst and the desire to commit mass murder it's hard to know what else to say on that.

That's true, except 90% of suicide attempts with a firearm are successful, while 90% of suicide attempts with other methods are unsuccessful. There are 21000 firearm suicides each year. Overwhelmingly white people with access to a firearm in the house. About 500 firearm suicides each year are children.

So people choose one device to kill themselves, and the problem is the device rather than the desire to end their own life? The issue of children ending their own lives with firearms isn't best addressed by taking firearms away from every law-abiding citizen in the country, it's addressed by parental responsibility making sure their children are adequately protected in the home.

This is relevant because with hundreds of firearm suicides each DAY in our country, sometimes an angry person decides to take out others with them.

So it would be OK if someone sufficiently angry to take others out with them decided to let off a poison gas bomb in a crowded store? Once again the problem is people reaching a stage where they see no way out of their predicament rather than the device they choose to end it all.

Why do you assume it can only be one of those factors? Gun access OR hostility is a false dilemma. Obviously it's both (and more) and mass killing children in a school is a lot harder without a firearm.

It's not a false dilemma at all, the question is how to address one issue without causing other issues. How do we protect a small minority without imposing upon the majority? You know, the hundreds of millions of lawfully held firearms that aren't used to kill people. The millions of people who own firearms and somehow manage to muddle through each day without shooting anybody. The billions of rounds of ammunition held lawfully that manage to stay in the box and not end up embedded in someone's spleen. You know the ones.

Mass killing is the kind of thing that those so inclined will find a way. In Nice terrorists used a truck to run into a crowd and caused dozens of casualties. On London Bridge terrorists used a van to run over a bunch of pedestrians and then ran around with big knives. Back in the day the IRA used a truck packed with explosives to cause a billion dollars worth of damage (and a number of human casulaties) to the City of London. Perhaps the best thing to do is have a common sense discussion on vehicle restrictions. You know, it's hard to run people over with a truck if you can't have a truck.

 

[Josiah]

If the US raises the age to buy a gun to 21, doesn't it also have to raise the age of those who can use a gun - and thus raise the age to be in the military? It seems to me the great majority of recruits are right out of high school.... and it may be good to have military at the peak of their physical abilities?

 

[tango]

If the US raises the age to buy a gun to 21, doesn't it also have to raise the age of those who can use a gun - and thus raise the age to be in the military? It seems to me the great majority of recruits are right out of high school.... and it may be good to have military at the peak of their physical abilities?

Perhaps, but the curiosity of being deemed responsible enough to own a gun while simultaneously being deemed too irresponsible to drink a beer doesn't seem to phase people.

 

[psalms 91]

Perhaps, but the curiosity of being deemed responsible enough to own a gun while simultaneously being deemed too irresponsible to drink a beer doesn't seem to phase people.

Yup a few laws like that

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

If teenagers thinking everyone hated them were the problem the country would be knee deep in blood.

Whatever the range of insecurities happens to be, hundreds of american children shoot themselves each year, tens of thousands of adults, and there are at least weekly mass shootings in the country. More than enough blood spilled by my standards.

So people choose one device to kill themselves, and the problem is the device rather than the desire to end their own life?

No im not simplifying causes down to just one. Access to a gun is A cause of higher deaths in mass killings and suicides. With suicide, only one device--a firearm--kills 90% of the time. Attempts with all other methods kill 10% of the time.

The issue of children ending their own lives with firearms isn't best addressed by taking firearms away from every law-abiding citizen in the country, it's addressed by parental responsibility making sure their children are adequately protected in the home.

I've never suggested taking firearms away from law abiding citizens. But I have provided facts that access to firearms is significant to these types of death. 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded firearms that are unlocked.

So it would be OK if someone sufficiently angry to take others out with them decided to let off a poison gas bomb in a crowded store?

Hopefully this doesn't represent the extent of your inquiry skills.

Mass killing is the kind of thing that those so inclined will find a way. In Nice terrorists used a truck to run into a crowd and caused dozens of casualties. On London Bridge terrorists used a van to run over a bunch of pedestrians and then ran around with big knives. Back in the day the IRA used a truck packed with explosives to cause a billion dollars worth of damage (and a number of human casulaties) to the City of London. Perhaps the best thing to do is have a common sense discussion on vehicle restrictions. You know, it's hard to run people over with a truck if you can't have a truck.

Public policy response to vehicular killings and bombs is an interesting topic. Since it's way easier to kill people and ones self with firearms, that's what people do. So I don't see how this tangent is a response to anything I've said.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

Whatever the range of insecurities happens to be, hundreds of american children shoot themselves each year, tens of thousands of adults, and there are at least weekly mass shootings in the country. More than enough blood spilled by my standards.

So perhaps the problem is to look at why thousands of people want to end their life rather than what they choose to use to end their life. The fact they want to do it at all is the problem, no?

No im not simplifying causes down to just one. Access to a gun is A cause of higher deaths in mass killings and suicides. With suicide, only one device--a firearm--kills 90% of the time. Attempts with all other methods kill 10% of the time.

I've never suggested taking firearms away from law abiding citizens. But I have provided facts that access to firearms is significant to these types of death. 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded firearms that are unlocked.

So what exactly are you suggesting?

Hopefully this doesn't represent the extent of your inquiry skills.

Awesome response. I bow in awe of your wisdom.

Public policy response to vehicular killings and bombs is an interesting topic. Since it's way easier to kill people and ones self with firearms, that's what people do. So I don't see how this tangent is a response to anything I've said.

You said mass killing is harder without a firearm. In the UK it's hard to get your hands on a firearm so the nutjobs use trucks and knives. In Nice they used a truck. If people are minded to harm others they will find a way.

Public response is absurd most of the time. When a white cop shoots a black teenager the problem is institutional racism. When black teenagers shoot other black teenagers the problem is generational poverty. When nutjobs run into a crowd with a truck the problem is radical Islam. When someone shoots at a school the problem is the gun. Curious, no?

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

So perhaps the problem is to look at why thousands of people want to end their life rather than what they choose to use to end their life. The fact they want to do it at all is the problem, no?

Absolutely that is one big problem and there should be even more done in schools and communities to help prevent suicide. These kinds of services do already exist in most places, although school funding and local mental health services are frequent targets of state legislatures. But ultimately it's impossible to know that an individual is ruminating on suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts. So assuming that some people in any society around the world will be suicidal or homicidal, the next easier-to-address problem is how to reduce the harm done by these incidents. This leads us to think about the instruments used to kill.

So what exactly are you suggesting?

Well it would be nice if people locked up their firearms to keep them away from children. It would be nice if gun owners put some thought into where their firearms will end up when they are done owning them. As far as laws, even if not possible right now what I would like is to keep guns away from people who aren't law abiding or cognitively capable. Something like this:

1. Mandatory licence to legally own or purchase a firearm or ammunition.
2. No licence to anyone convicted of a violent crime (including domestic abuse).
3. No licence to anyone diagnosed with a condition that requires psychotropic medication.
4. No licence to anyone with multiple substance abuse violations (drugs or alcohol).

In the UK it's hard to get your hands on a firearm so the nutjobs use trucks and knives. In Nice they used a truck. If people are minded to harm others they will find a way.

And how many people die each year in vehicle-based mass killings? Id much rather have that problem of a wacko in a truck once every few years than our problem of weekly mass killings with guns and daily dozens of suicides with guns.





Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

Absolutely that is one big problem and there should be even more done in schools and communities to help prevent suicide. These kinds of services do already exist in most places, although school funding and local mental health services are frequent targets of state legislatures. But ultimately it's impossible to know that an individual is ruminating on suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts. So assuming that some people in any society around the world will be suicidal or homicidal, the next easier-to-address problem is how to reduce the harm done by these incidents. This leads us to think about the instruments used to kill.

But you're still focussing on the symptoms and not the cause. If someone is minded to kill others, at present a gun is an easy way to do it. Other easy ways would include a bomb, poison gas attack, poisoning a water supply or similar, but for now the focus is clearly driven by an anti-gun agenda.

It's like I said in a previous post, if a white cop shoots a black teenager the problem is racism. If black teenagers shoot other black teenagers the problem is generational poverty. If someone shoots children in school suddenly the problem is the gun. It makes no sense.

Well it would be nice if people locked up their firearms to keep them away from children. It would be nice if gun owners put some thought into where their firearms will end up when they are done owning them.

THis is one of those situations that can never be resolved. The responsible don't need to be told to be responsible and the irresponsible, by definition, will ignore any attempts to encourage responsibility. So the associated question is how much intrusion into the lives of the responsible is acceptable, in an attempt to rein in the irresponsible.

As far as laws, even if not possible right now what I would like is to keep guns away from people who aren't law abiding or cognitively capable. Something like this:

1. Mandatory licence to legally own or purchase a firearm or ammunition.
2. No licence to anyone convicted of a violent crime (including domestic abuse).
3. No licence to anyone diagnosed with a condition that requires psychotropic medication.
4. No licence to anyone with multiple substance abuse violations (drugs or alcohol).

This is what background checks are supposed to do, but apparently credible threats aren't enough to register on a background check.

And how many people die each year in vehicle-based mass killings? Id much rather have that problem of a wacko in a truck once every few years than our problem of weekly mass killings with guns and daily dozens of suicides with guns.

The number of people who die on the roads is, from what I recall, broadly comparable to the number of people who die in gun-related incidents. The difference is that 2/3 of gun-related deaths are suicides.

What proportion of gun-related deaths, once suicides and accidents are excluded, are associated with what kinds of weapons? The most recent statistics I saw were from 2012, in which I think slightly over 300 people were murdered with rifles of any kind. How many AR-15 and comparable rifles are lawfully owned? The NRA estimates several million. So out of several million AR-15 style rifles, and however many other types of rifle are out there, a vanishingly small proportion of them are used to commit murder. If you've got murder on your mind a handgun makes more sense because you can conceal it far more easily. An AR-15 is more accurate at longer range but it's a lot harder to hide if you decide to try and blend in with your victims.

As we've seen in cities around the world, where there's a will to kill there's a way. In Nice it was a truck. In Boston it was a pressure cooker. In London it was a bomb on the Underground. In Tokyo it was a sarin gas attack. In NYC it was box cutters and aircraft. Banning everything that gets used as a weapon is a path to madness, that still does nothing to rein in those who care nothing for the law.

 

[psalms 91]

But you're still focussing on the symptoms and not the cause. If someone is minded to kill others, at present a gun is an easy way to do it. Other easy ways would include a bomb, poison gas attack, poisoning a water supply or similar, but for now the focus is clearly driven by an anti-gun agenda.

It's like I said in a previous post, if a white cop shoots a black teenager the problem is racism. If black teenagers shoot other black teenagers the problem is generational poverty. If someone shoots children in school suddenly the problem is the gun. It makes no sense.



THis is one of those situations that can never be resolved. The responsible don't need to be told to be responsible and the irresponsible, by definition, will ignore any attempts to encourage responsibility. So the associated question is how much intrusion into the lives of the responsible is acceptable, in an attempt to rein in the irresponsible.



This is what background checks are supposed to do, but apparently credible threats aren't enough to register on a background check.



The number of people who die on the roads is, from what I recall, broadly comparable to the number of people who die in gun-related incidents. The difference is that 2/3 of gun-related deaths are suicides.

What proportion of gun-related deaths, once suicides and accidents are excluded, are associated with what kinds of weapons? The most recent statistics I saw were from 2012, in which I think slightly over 300 people were murdered with rifles of any kind. How many AR-15 and comparable rifles are lawfully owned? The NRA estimates several million. So out of several million AR-15 style rifles, and however many other types of rifle are out there, a vanishingly small proportion of them are used to commit murder. If you've got murder on your mind a handgun makes more sense because you can conceal it far more easily. An AR-15 is more accurate at longer range but it's a lot harder to hide if you decide to try and blend in with your victims.

As we've seen in cities around the world, where there's a will to kill there's a way. In Nice it was a truck. In Boston it was a pressure cooker. In London it was a bomb on the Underground. In Tokyo it was a sarin gas attack. In NYC it was box cutters and aircraft. Banning everything that gets used as a weapon is a path to madness, that still does nothing to rein in those who care nothing for the law.

Not comparable unless of course you think mass shooting s are accidents, lets get real

 

[tango]

Not comparable unless of course you think mass shooting s are accidents, lets get real

Huh? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I don't think the attack with a truck in Nice was an accident, nor do I think the pressure cooker exploding at the Boston marathon was an accident, nor do I think the bombs on the London Underground were accidents, nor do I think the sarin gas attack in Tokyo was an accident, and nor do I think that the planes were flown into the WTC by accident.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

But you're still focussing on the symptoms and not the cause. If someone is minded to kill others, at present a gun is an easy way to do it.

That's a lame argument though. We don't have to only focus on the cause to make policies that help alleviate a problem. For example tens of thousands of people die each year in traffic collisions. It's not necessary for us to only "address the cause" of why people tend to crash into one another. We can also focus on mitigating harm. Doing this with vehicles has worked. Because we now require licences to drive, enforce speed limits, drunk driving laws, seatbelts, and airbags in cars, the number of fatalities has fallen to far less than half of what it was decades ago before these policies. Naturally the problems (and root causes) of road/vehicle danger still exist, but over 20,000 fewer Americans die each year compared to before these policies.

Other easy ways would include a bomb, poison gas attack, poisoning a water supply or similar, but for now the focus is clearly driven by an anti-gun agenda.

It would not be as easy or likely to mass murder children in a school with these methods. Right now the tool being used is guns so that's the current problem that needs solutions. If children are hitting each other with sticks would a parent say, "well I guess there's nothing I can do, because they hypothetically could be throwing rocks or stabbing each other with screwdrivers, so I'll just sit here and think about the root cause of them hitting each other with sticks. "

This is what background checks are supposed to do, but apparently credible threats aren't enough to register on a background check.

The background check system is completely lacking and does not accomplish any of the items on my list. As soon as someone commits a violent crime, any firearms registered to them need to be collected by law enforcement. Not just past crimes at the time of purchase.

As we've seen in cities around the world, where there's a will to kill there's a way. In Nice it was a truck. In Boston it was a pressure cooker. In London it was a bomb on the Underground. In Tokyo it was a sarin gas attack. In NYC it was box cutters and aircraft. Banning everything that gets used as a weapon is a path to madness, that still does nothing to rein in those who care nothing for the law.

Again that's not an argument. Just because other things can be used to kill people doesn't mean mass killing incidents and fatalities can't be drastically reduced. Essentially you're claiming that unless all causes of murder can be completely avoided, then nothing should ever be done.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk