Slashdot Mirror
4 Calif. Students Arrested For Alleged Mass-Killing Plot
The New York Times reports that four high school students in the small California town of Tuolumne, about 120 miles east of San Francisco, have been arrested, but not yet charged, for planning an attack on their school, Summerville High School. According to the Times, three of the four were overheard discussing this plot, and a fourth conspirator was later identified. Their goal, according to Toulumne sheriff James Mele, was "to shoot and kill as many people as possible at the campus"; they had not however been able yet to obtain the weapons they wanted to carry out the attack. From NBC News' version of the story:
"Detectives located evidence verifying a plot to shoot staff and students at Summerville High School," Mele said. "The suspects' plan was very detailed in nature and included names of would-be victims, locations and the methods in which the plan was to be carried out."
... "4 Calif. Students Arrested For Alleged Mass-Killing Pot"?
Therapists say, "You should come talk to me!" Sooooooon! Soooooon! Talk to the therapist you cow poster!
I come here for geek/tech news. I read stuff like this on real news sites.
Even if they had the weapons, everyone at school would have been safe. The school was designated a gun-free zone. I'm pretty sure there's no way they could have gotten the guns past those "gun-free zone" signs.
Of all the different groups of people to direct your misguided anger at, why target defenseless school or college kids? I would have been expecting a higher value target, such as corrupt politicians.
The only reason I can think of is this is the easymode way to be remembered in the history books.
Looks like a success for "see something, say something."
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
So they committed the crime of thought conspiracy? Is that why they haven't been charged yet because they cannot figure out how to charge them?
Seems like it fits perfectly here, as the chemical and munition industry is philosophically united with techno libertarians who want the freedom to develop weapons but not the responsibility of having to deal with the world they've created. The geeky fascination with war and destruction needs to change.
And shortsightedness of youth. It's hard to see past your immediate problems. You not only see no future for yourself but you also can't see our comprehend the socio-economic causes for your misery. Only the most obvious ones are apparent to most folks, and that leaves the bullies. People love picking on nerds. Even teachers do it. We didn't stop bullies until the nerds started packing heat...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I came in assuming this as well, but it looks like they confessed.
"The investigation has so far been based on interviews with the suspects, during which they gave a detailed confession, Sheriff Mele said."
It really seems to help them self-propagate.
In fact, I'd rather have less TSA security at the airport and more stringent laws about reporting on mass shootings (and drug commercials too)!
Laws are a good thing when they punish the guilty and don't target the innocent. A law against murder only causes problems for murderers, and therefore isn't very controversial.
A law against owning certain types of firearms (a victimless crime) does not only target future killers, but also the 99% of owners who would never misuse them. You are talking tens of millions of people.
Additionally - if you are going to ignore the rule against murder, why would you care about firearms restrictions?
A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law.
I hope this explains the argument in more detail. 14/88, RaHoWa.
I came in assuming this as well, but it looks like they confessed.
"The investigation has so far been based on interviews with the suspects, during which they gave a detailed confession, Sheriff Mele said."
Yeah, but why were they being interviewed by police? Because somebody overheard something and told the cops. Exactly a see/say situation.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Honestly I suspect a lot of nerds fantasized about doing things to their classmates of a violent nature. This subculture exists in-part because many of those who joined it were ostracized from others, and school as an artificial construct tends to force people that otherwise wouldn't associate to have to associate.
We'll probably never learn much about this case of any real meaning, but that the conspirators supposedly had a list, and that list as-reported contained the names of other students specifically, leads me to believe that the conspirators felt that they had been done injustice by these other students and that they felt they had no recourse beyond such a violent act. It could also be that there was never any serious intention to actually pull-off a spree killing, and that fantasizing about doing it was a way of blowing-off steam about how they felt.
My guess as to why they haven't been charged yet is that they're in that as minors without ready access to the implements needed to actually carry-out such a shooting it's difficult to know if there actually is anything to charge them with. Conspiracy generally requires an ability to carry out the ends of the conspiracy. People want to do harm to others, usually specific people and specific others, all of the time, but that doesn't mean that they're guilty of a crime because of a want.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I was arrested once in school for a bomb threat I didn't make. It's easier to agree with whatever they say than stand your ground and tell them they're wrong. The pressure they put on you is massive and they use sales tricks to limit your view to only the scenarios they create, don't they? "Yes, I don't normally leave in the middle of class to take a piss." "Yes I carry around markers." "Yes one of them is black." "Yes I've used it." etc...
You tried to do your blame Obama bit
No, I'm not blaming Obama for what these kids wanted to do. I'm pointing out that his speech blaming the NRA for it was completely off base.
Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political
You obviously didn't watch his speech. He came right out and said he thought the issue should be made political. His words. On the same day the students were killed. Try to get your rant at least aligned with current events and Obama's own words, OK?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Slashdot used to subtitle the site "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." If this isn't "stuff that matters", nothing is.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I think a sensible requirement for gun ownership would be that you can't live with your parents and you can't have an adolescent child living with you where you keep a gun. Because teens are idiots. If you're paying rent then you're responsible enough to have a gun, otherwise tough luck.
So you'd obviously be in favor of adults not being allowed to own cars if they have teenagers in the house, right? Because teenagers kill WAY more people with cars than they do with weapons of any kind.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
http://features.slashdot.org/s...
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Do you have something wrong with your brain?
No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.
While keeping knives and guns out of schools *might* reduce the chances of fights becoming deadly, it increases the number of fights overall.
Bullying happens. Subject certain kids to constant harassment with no recourse and no way out, and you get Columbine.
No but I'd be in favor of raising the age to legally drive and there are already penalties for driving without a license. If teens started planning mass vehicular homicides I might have to revise my thinking.
Really? Do you think that cars are as useful for self-defense as guns are?
Stories That Happened In MI
There are many people that harvest wild game to eat. Cars don't work well for that. Guns on the other hand ....
It seems to me that you might be hasty in suggesting someone else get a new brain. Maybe you should start closer to home.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'll lay money that these four students follow the "religion pf peace"
I'll lay money that these four students follow the "religion pf peace"
In which case it will turn out that they were all keen on drama and practicing a play. Everyone will have to apologize and they will be given a trip to the white house.
you are just as bad assuming it was a "euro"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
That's not a terribly strong comparison because
A) Teenagers use their parents cars at far greater rates then they use their guns so gross number comparisons are irrelevant
B) Cars are tools whose intended purpose is to move people about. Guns, aside from hunting rifles, are tools designed first and foremost for killing people. Sure, cars can and do kill people but so can just about anything. Guns are singled out because they dont have any other use and they do it so much better then anything else.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
"Guns, aside from hunting rifles, are tools designed first and foremost for killing people."
So .01 of Americans have a side use for them. What's your point?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I'll lay money that you've never actually talked with any real people of that religion, and only have your conception of them based on what you see in the media.
When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.
I'll lay money that you've never actually talked with any real people of that religion, and only have your conception of them based on what you see in the media.
Wrong
An interesting bet. How many of the high-school / college mass killings in USA were done by the religion of peace, do you reckon?
Nice wookie defense, straw men all. The problem is the American he-boy is taught that he's got a big dick if he has a big gun.
An interesting bet. How many of the high-school / college mass killings in USA were done by the religion of peace, do you reckon?
Not many, but this one is a conspiracy of four. While its possible that four lone loonies found each-other it is much more likely that they were all muslim, and that way knowing that they would at least not get reported for telling each other their plans.
When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.
You want to look up the percentage of gun-owners whose gun has killed people and the percentage of car owners whose car has killed people. When less than a fraction of a percent of gun-owners are irresponsible one has to be clinically insane to suggest that we remove the guns from the rest.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I understand, but how many is not many? 5 or 10 or 50? I can't remember a single one off the top of my head to be honest.
must have been non-muslim kids... if it were angry and mentally unstable muslim kids, this would be a terrorist attack averted.
As far as I know the recent Oklahoma college killing. We'll see about this one shortly I'm sure
Parents' discretion. If the kids are disciplined, it doesn't matter if they're idiots. From age 5 onward I knew better than to fool around with firearms. Even the antique shotgun on the wall was off-limits. .22 rifle at age ten and by age 15, I had a shotgun and deer rifle and was allowed to shoot alone and unsupervised. I've never shot anyone or had a firearms-related accident.
I received my first
Parents should be held responsible for recklessness and negligence which results in their kids causing injury or death. To hell with cookie-cutter solutions tailored to the least common denominator in our society.
Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political
You know how to find out if some situation has political ramifications? If it contains any plurality of people, there will be politics.
You know who "turned the situation political" first? Obama. Because he made the first public political statement, right? From a politician?
Or maybe, just maybe, nobody made the situation political, because it was already political.
Maybe someday you'll have an idea worth associating with an identity, and on that day you'll log in and share it with us. Until then, your use of the AC account proves that you know you're talking shit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Apparently females can tell reality from fiction a lot better than males. And maybe even minority males can, as well?
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Firearms are used by individual citizens hundreds of thousands of times each year in self defense, typically without a shot being fired. Law enforcement agents carry firearms based on the rationale that they might need to engage violent criminals. Why are cars any more "necessary to life" than the tools you might need to defend your life?
Driving yourself to the hospital might be a matter of life and death (although most places have ambulance services). Otherwise, your life being dependent on access to an automobile is a direct result of your lifestyle choice.
That doesn't necessarily reply to my comment though. My point was about purposefully planning/executing mass killings by car vs. by gun. I am certain some crazies will try and do it, but the majority won't when they can simply use a gun.
Mind you, I didn't mention removing guns from the majority as I honestly don't know if this would solve the problem. It might or might not, I really don't know, but I do know that something, somewhere has got to give.
a time before the thought police arrested people for having an imagination...
How about backing up your claim by providing proof that the NRA advocates that people under 18 should have access to firearms? Their website has a detailed description of their stance on the issue and there are plenty of YouTube vids of NRA spokespeople.
Otherwise, refrain from posting your strawman BS.
it is much more likely that they were all muslim
Based on today's media standards, the mere fact that the race/religion of the kids is not mentioned suggests that they are white. But you just go on gobbling up all the fear-mongering about those dangerous muslims.
In this society, that is the important question.
I have personally used a firearm (happily, through brandishing, not having to actually shoot) to spare my wife and I from the ongoing actions of a very large, very crazy guy beating down our back door with a metal pipe. You would prefer that we fight him hand to hand and wait the 20 minutes it took for the police to show up. Why? Because you've never dealt with such a situation, lucky you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Cars are often necessary to life; guns aren't. Get a new brain.
So you don't think any police should be armed, because they never encounter a situation where the use of lethal force (or the deterrent power of its possibility) is ever necessary? You've obviously never actually seen someone being stabbed or beaten, or been alone and come across a group of people who would very happily kill you for the possessions you're carrying. Or been a woman alone in a parking garage being approached by three guys each twice her size and telling her they're going to rape her. Or live on the same street as three houses run by MS-13 gang members. Lucky you, you live such a charmed life.
Or DO you have such issues, but you also have a police officer that follow you everywhere so that you don't personally have to deal with preserving your own life? Cops are great - they will head into situations that the rest of us run from. But they are always minutes away when you have seconds to deal with someone violent. Guns are used for self defense many thousands of times a year more than they are used by criminals to kill people. You want to take that self defense away. Why? Are you prepared to make up for it in some other way? Who's going to pay for whatever solution you have in mind?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There are many people that harvest wild game to eat. Cars don't work well for that.
I totally agree with you, but, well, funny story (kind of). I knew a poor family back in Indiana who lived way out in the boondocks. The father welded a formidable 2-inch pipe "bumper" on front of the old pickup that he drove just for "hunting". He averaged 3 deer/year with that thing. If a deer ran out in front of him - he swerved *toward* it.
Do you have ESP?
Christianity? Well chances are they are.
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace - Corinthians 14:33
Poor reading comprehension there, I made no statement about my preferences, what I pointed out was that the statistic regarding "self-defense" was not legitimate (even leaving aside it being an unsourced aside), and that the depiction of ninja-costume clad persons in commercials was a farce, and that more likely it was going to be an Alzheimer's patient than a robber.
This doesn't mean other instances don't happen, but that they are less common.
Was this hard for you to comprehend because of your focus on one personal anecdote? Why not about the person who shot somebody thinking they were trying to break in, and maybe they were, but they were a senior citizen who probably thought it was their own home.
Which if you want to talk about, has happened to people. In fact, I've had people banging on my door in the middle of the night too. You know what the last time was? A guy's house was on fire. Needed me to call 911. The most useful tool there was a phone, and possibly a hose.
Look, if you want means to protect yourself, great, but don't expect me to not point out the price of using lethal force, or the way it is oversold as somehow necessary in a manner that is a mix of frightening and comical. If you genuinely have such a regular need for use of a firearm, it's most likely you need much larger fixes to your situation. Fortunately for all us, it's more likely you don't.
Well, to be fair, there's more than one person who buys a shitty used car for the express purpose of getting a deer or a moose. I can't say that I'd do so myself but it's not unheard of. I have no idea of the success rates but there are probably fewer nights that I could not see an animal than there are nights where I could see an animal. I don't go 'moose spotting' when I'm home. Instead, I practice 'moose avoidance.' There are plenty who hit them by accident. It seems like it would be fairly trivial to do so on purpose.
Deer are more nimble and more intelligent than the majestic moose. The meese are stupid and will sit there and giggle at you while you're waiting for them to meander out of the roadway. Sometimes they'll attack your car just to show you who the boss is and to stop you from checking out their womenfolk. Other times they get infected with a brain worm that makes them do stupider things like jump off a cliff onto a car, jump up and down on the car (killing the lady and her child) and then jump off the next cliff, plummeting to their death in the Wyman pond area just above the Bingham corners.
Stupid meese...
Anyhow, you could (and some do) certainly paste them with your car and I understand there's a technique to it. (Aim for a rear leg or use the handbrake to slide sideways into them - use a car as a truck is higher and will result in more meat spoilage.) I can't say that I've ever felt the urge to engage in it.
Next week we'll learn about 'heater hunting.'
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
False analogy. It's ridiculous to compare car accident fatalities to firearm homicide which, of course, would well exceed accidental gun deaths given its nature.
In your mind, guns ARE the problem. Removing them from society, even though 99% of owners have never done anything wrong, is your magic fix for the problem.
The rest of us try to make you all see reason in that guns, like anything else humans have used to kill each other over our entire existence, are nothing more than tools. How they're used is solely up to the wielder of said tool. However, you seem to ignore this fact every single time some bat-shit-crazy individual goes out and shoots up a bus full of Nuns, or a schoolyard, a workplace, or whatever. It's the GUNS fault. Each and every time.
Yet ( and this is where your hypocrisy really shines ) anytime the shooting starts, what is the very first thing you do ?
You dial 911.
Which you know will do what ?
IT BRINGS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WITH GUNS TO THE SCENE. The relevant part of that sentence being " WITH GUNS ".
Don't even go down the path of " Well they're properly trained to use them " because we're not talking about the wielder are we ? We're talking about the tool. Remember, to you all, it's the gun. Not the person behind it.
So to all of you who seem to think guns are the problem and not the people wielding them, how do you justify calling the police for help ? Knowing they're going to be bringing lots of guns with them. Remember, to you all, it's not the people, it's without a doubt the GUN that's the problem which is why you want them all banned.
So, I have to ask. Which is it ?
Are guns really the problem or do you think it might just be guns in the hands of the wrong type of person that might be our issue here ? Because if you think it's ok to call the police ( who will be bringing lots of guns with them ) then you can't possibly deny that, in the hands of the right people, guns can actually save lives.
Afterthought: This will probably nuke my karma into oblivion but I don't really care. The folks who think banning something like a firearm will magically make everyone get along and the killings will stop just makes absolutely no sense to me. Mankind has been killing each other en masse since the dawn of time for various reasons using various tools. I don't see us stopping that behavior anytime soon unless we nuke each other into sub-atomic particles. The bright side of nuking everything would be the majority of your gun violence would stop :D
That's perhaps one of the most bizarre positions I've ever seen posted on /.
You're suggesting that this site exists and is successful because... its populated by pissed off nerds with latent violent tendencies who were actively drummed out of the Scientific America crowd and forced to talk to one another by a school?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Is shooting up your school this year's version of the "27 club" fad?
Isn't this where the FBI steps in and offers them guns. And then in 6 months take them down and chalk up a anti-terrorist win?
No, I'm saying a subset of the geek/nerd subculture found itself in that subculture because it was ostracized. It ended up here as a form a counter-culture. This site is popular amoung the geek/nerd subculture, so there are a significant number of users that can sympathize with people that would desire to cause harm to those that were perceived to have previously harmed them. That the vast majority of them would never actually cause harm would mean that they don't actually have violent tendencies.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Meowwwwwwwww!!!
No, that's for Chinese Restaurants.
Here's the thing.
Conspiracy to commit murder is pretty much 99.highNines% a "bad thing" and so if people do that, we have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that some assholes will do this is true; the fact that we want to then isolate them from everyone is also true. This, then, is a good law, because it does not interfere with everyone else's legitimate goings-on, and it can actually protect us from those assholes -- it's just about a perfect guarantee that if people are engaged in conspiracy to commit murder, it'd be much, much better for everyone else if they are stopped.
Carrying a gun is pretty much a 99.highNines% okay thing, as in, no one is going to get hurt by that, and so if people do that, we do not have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that very, very rarely, some assholes with bad intent will carry guns is not a good reason to tell everyone else they cannot carry guns. Further, as anything these assholes do that is actually asshole-ish already has a law against it (including conspiracy to commit murder, as above), we already have somewhat working tools to address, punish the actuality of, and in some cases even prevent, the problem. Do we need more tools? Yes, we do, because the problem continues to arise -- we have not solved it.
So, as to appropriate and effective tools: I think it's fair to say that most young who are in a state of mind of "I want to [kill|maim] [person|list]" have been pretty severely mistreated in one way or another. Classing, bullying, shaming, beatings and so on. Reducing that is where the effort should be applied by society. Not only because those things are bad, as they certainly are, but because they are known to be significantly contributing or primarily causal factors in this kind of acting out. Which, by the way, guns are not. The act of keeping and carrying arms is not what makes a person want to use it on other people. It's the wrong behavioral target. The problem is not arms. The problem is our defective culture, specifically in how our people, most definitely including our young people, treat each other due to perceived differences. Schools pretty much ignore this stuff. I remember all of it going on at a pretty good clip in my high school, and also in the high school my kids went to decades later. When they were bullied and shamed and I went in to talk about it with the powers that be at the school, I was told the kids "just have to work it out", which is, in my opinion, the root of the problem. No, the kids don't have to work it out on their own. The authorities should be eliminating the problem in every way possible, root, stem and branch. The entire competitive landscape in schools is wrongheaded, from academia to sports to any other means of holding up A as "better" than B. That's a whole different discussion, but that does provide a good overview of the problem.
Restricting arms won't solve the problem. Two reasons: One, it isn't the problem, and two, once someone is in the state of mind that says "I'm gonna [maim|kill] alla these fuckerz", they're already well past obeying laws, and well past caring about how it is done. So say there are magically no more guns. Does that clear the deck of easy ways to [maim|kill]? No, of course it doesn't. A little sword work, some mace swinging, a well-timed exercise of driving a vehicle into a crowd, home-made explosives, any number of poisoning mechanisms, sabotaging a bus, a well-set fire... it's just not that difficult to create huge amounts of mayhem, specifically or generally, by any number of easy means, even if all guns were magicked away. That is the core matter -- not how the mayhem is created. Guns are simply the preferred tool right now. Take them out of the equation, and it is a certainty that something else will become the preferred tool. Because all such a restriction does is take away that one tool. It doesn't take away either the motivation for mayhem, or
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
... what's to prevent more guns being imported disguised as routine cocaine shipments?
Was this hard for you to comprehend because of your focus on one personal anecdote?
No, I understand perfectly that you're trying to wish away self-defense use of firearms for your own political or ideological reasons. The problem is that such use has been substantially documented in well known academic studies, and even if you want to say that the numbers of uses found in those studies are off (too high) by an order of magnitude, the number of such uses still completely eclipses the number of deaths caused by criminals that happen to be using guns.
I get it. You live someplace where you don't have home invasions, you don't have entire departments of the local police agencies that exist just to deal with well organized gangs like MS-13, and you don't have problems with carjackings, robberies, and women getting accosted as they walk in public. You're probably in a nice gated community somewhere. That's lovely for you. And you think it's dangerous for you if I own a firearm. Why you think that, I can't imagine - considering you're much more likely to get by somebody driving a car while drunk. So am I. But whatever the odds are of my becoming a victim of violence where I live and work, the actual statistics for my family so far are over 100%, as it's happened to me and mine more than once - and not just some purse snatching or a shove from some punk on the sidewalk. We're talking serious assault, home break-ins, smashing of car windows, repeated threats from gang members, the works.
We've had to make a second pot of coffee for the number of cops we had in our house more than once, over local thugs doing violent crap in our neighborhood, and me being one of the few people who will actually name names to the police, pick out mug shots, and stand up to these ass-hats. For which I've had my life threatened, my property destroyed and stolen, and more. Neighbors have had their kids beaten up for not doing what the local gang enforcers demand, and we've watched a local pimp slash the tires of three cars just so he could be sure he got the one belonging to someone who made a call about him roughing up a woman in our parking lot.
Yeah, to you - these are just rare anecdotes, right? You need to get out more. Career thugs spend very little time locked up for doing stuff like this. They have no problem - especially the MS-13 types - intimidating people with machetes, torching cars, and throwing just-killed family pets through kitchen windows to make a point. I don't need a larger fix for "my" situation, we're talking about a problem that is culture-wide in some places. In our case, it's because our county considers itself a sanctuary for illegals, and so we're now a franchise operation for Salvadoran and Nicaraguan gangs. The really funny thing is we have it EASY compared to places like Chicago.
Please carry on with your untroubled life. But stop pontificating about the frequency with which other, less fortunate people find themselves unable to wait 30 minutes for the police to show up and deal with something that's going to happen in the next 30 seconds.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm still very certain you don't see those guys clad as ninjas prancing around your yard
Why do you keep saying that? What reference have I made that makes any reference to any such thing?
It's almost so obvious that I wonder why you'd claim otherwise
I didn't claim otherwise. Rampant crime, and the tolerance of things like violent gangs populated almost entirely by illegal aliens, is certainly a cultural problem. Our culture is far, far too tolerant of violent criminals, and allows too many of them to rotate right back onto the street. Yes, that's a cultural problem.
People want to exploit fear, and make you dance to their strings,
Yup, just like you're doing right now. Trying to make people irrationally fear millions and millions of people who own firearms. You're completely unpersuasive.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Much of the rest of the world actually is more violent than the US. Many countries in Europe have higher rates of violence than the US for crimes such as rape, battery, and others.
Why don't you let me know how resisting rapists and thugs works out for you when you get old, sick, handicapped, or outnumbered? In the US people can still have a decent chance of defending themselves. In your sad world, not so much. You know what is going to happen to you in this situation? You'll probably be beaten, robbed, raped, and killed. The US isn't a nation of "pussies," you're just not bright enough to understand the facts of life and make provision for the future.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
but I do know that something, somewhere has got to give
Kind of like it already has? The use of guns in violent crimes has been going down steadily for decades. If you remove from the stats the four cities that host the worst of the country's intra-gang violence, the rate plummets. We have less murder per capita now than we have since the 1950's.
Alas, we've had mulitple murders right near us in the last few weeks. Of course, they were stabbings. When you say "something has got to give," you're talking about human behavior, right? Not which inanimate object some killer decides to use? Not whether they use a pressure cooker to shred dozens of people, but that they want to do so?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Do you have something wrong with your brain?
No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?
Not at all.
And I'd like to start by pointing out that your comparison of vehicles to firearms is completely logically fallacious and the above quoted statement is extremely hypocritical.
First off, a vehicle is a method of transportation, not a weapon. It is designed for the duty of conveying people from point to point faster than they can walk, not intended to do bodily harm and just because it can be used for that purpose does not mean that it is any way equivalent to a firearm which is expressly designed to do bodily harm. It would be like saying a gun is a can opener because it can be used to open a can, it is utterly incorrect that it is a can opener because that is not the purpose it was designed for nor is it particularly good for that purpose, which leads me to my second point.
Secondly, cars are terrible at killing people. Seriously, every feature on a modern car is designed to minimise harm to the occupants an the people they hit. They make terrible killing devices just like a gun makes a terrible can opener.
Thirdly, there are far more cars than guns. Going by deaths per 100,000 vehicles to deaths per 100,000 guns the car is a positive haven of safety even in the hands of terrible drivers.
Forth point, cars are used far more than guns. So we add add frequency of usage to deaths per vehicle, the risk of cars compared to firearms is minuscule.
Fifth point, We dont let people near cars who 1) aren't trained to operate them or; 2) have demonstrated they will operate them in an unsafe manner. We license drivers, register and test cars, we charge and even imprison drivers who break laws and make themselves a danger to other road users, drivers who are dangerous have their licenses taken off them. Considering that guns are more dangerous than cars, why aren't the same measures taken with firearms?
Finally, if you want to improve road safety, there's plenty you can do. Begin by becoming a motor vehicle instructor. Start teaching people how to use the manual transmission (this teaches novice drivers how the car works and forces them to start thinking ahead of what they're doing) start teaching defensive driving. Stop speeding, learn what an indicator does, don't drink and drive, stay off the phone when in the car. I can give you a million suggestions and yes, I'm a licensed MVDIL (Motor Vehicle Driver Instructor License) in Western Australia, so I find your comparison laughable and your hypocrisy insufferable.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No, all you've done is pointed out some outlier information. If somebody uses meth to treat a low energy medical condition it doesnt all of a sudden make meth a constructive substance
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
So it's an "emotional arguement" when i point out we have 4 times the homicide rate of other Western countries and a gun violence rate that's through the roof? Shoot, all your statistc does is point out just how awash we are in guns and coupled with mine clearly details how guns are making us less safe, not more.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You dont understand how numbers work, do you?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
When did I apply good or evil identifiers to anything? Those are your words, not mine.
And guns, while not the best, are quite good at killing people. That's why militaries use them. At close range they are essentially point and click devices.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
False analogy. It's ridiculous to compare car accident fatalities to firearm homicide which, of course, would well exceed accidental gun deaths given its nature.
Why are they not comparable? If you claim that something is a killer and is a large enough and severe enough problem to enforce a ban on that something, then it better be a bigger problem than other common killers.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
To be precise, drunk, distracted and reckless driving are killers. Which is why police enforce ticketing and fatalities have dropped significantly since the 20th century. The next phase in mitigating car-related danger would be self-driving vehicles, obviously. Civilian gun use doesn't have the level of utility vehicles do, which the world at large overwhelmingly relies on - it's an accepted risk, by everyone driving. Aside from hunting which allowable in most developed countries, guns are toys, or murder instruments. A mere statistic doesn't mean much on its own - people in droves aren't jumping out of their seats to ban greasy foods in order to prevent heart-disease. Likewise vehicular deaths are in vast majority of cases not intentional. But by no metric should schools be acceptably a dangerous environment - there have been 45 school shootings in the U.S. this year, and more than one mass shooting. Frequent mass murders shake people up, as does the fact that rate of firearm homicide is far worse than any other developed country. It is utterly shameful and disgraceful.
Basically if you can't understand why ease and frequency of murder is a greater problem to the public consciousness than accidental death (within reason), I can't help you. In most cases those involved in vehicular accidents are at fault - they fucked up. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger isn't a mistake.
"Huhr duhr western countries! I am a retard!
None of those other countries are in a fucking drug war..."
Hahahaha. Am i debating a child here?
one of those other countries are in a fucking drug war with the rest of their combined continents. 2/3rds of all "gun violence"
"95% of the rest are drug-related.
So gun violence doesnt count when it involves drugs? That's preposterous.
"More people are killed, in America, with hammers than with rifles.
More people are killed, in America, be getting punched/kicked to death than with rifles."
We're talking about gun violence not rifle violence. You might as well compare statistics to specific models of gun and get even more imoressive statisitcs. "More people in America are killed by kangaroos each year then they are by WW2 era German Lugars! Guns are safe!"
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
If you actually read my whole post rather then just a single sentence i literally address the car issue. It was literally the primary point of the post. Comparing car deaths and gun deaths is rediculous. Not only are 99.9% of car deaths accidents but cars see infinitly more day to day use then firearms.
Yeah, I'm the stupid one...
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
"had not however been able yet to obtain the weapons they wanted"
well, clearly they're not real Americans then.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.