Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/

According to the article, there is now an average of one every five weeks in the US.
Why does this keep happening? Why are guns still legal?

At 6/11/14 11:15 PM, exudaz wrote: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/

According to the article, there is now an average of one every five weeks in the US.
Why does this keep happening? Why are guns still legal?

republicans

its madness I tell you. I have no idea how these ppl keep acquiring firearms.

Guns are still legal because of the second amendment. It is every American citizens right to be able to bear arms. It's not millions of peoples' faults for all of the school shootings lately, it's the people doing the shootings themselves. Every American shouldn't have one of their rights taken away just because of some dumbass people who think shooting up a school is a good idea.

At 6/11/14 11:20 PM, supra187 wrote: its madness I tell you. I have no idea how these ppl keep acquiring firearms.

I don't know. Why aren't the gun laws working. There is no way that someone would acquire these guns illegally.

Just throwing this out here...

Republicans always say that they need to defend themselves and that the government could invade your home or something if you were unarmed. Well, if that happens they aren't going to use infantry. If the government did decide to attack its civilians it would use drones or some kind of unarmed unit. For taking something like that down, an automatic weapon isn't going to particularly useful; you'd be better off with a high-penetration sniper rifle. Conveniently enough, you can't walk into a school with a sniper rifle and expect to kill 20 people. How about we compromise with the NRA and just tell them to promote sniper rifles? It sounds like a win-win situation.

Fuckin Mekekinz taken our jurbs hurp de derp we r southerners we ain
't no city like folk. USA USA USA. duh only colors we know is red white n blue fuck the rest. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!!!!

At 6/11/14 11:22 PM, DeftonesFan665 wrote: Guns are still legal because of the second amendment. It is every American citizens right to be able to bear arms. It's not millions of peoples' faults for all of the school shootings lately, it's the people doing the shootings themselves. Every American shouldn't have one of their rights taken away just because of some dumbass people who think shooting up a school is a good idea.

Exactly, what we should be doing is invest in mental health programs so people don't end up wanting to shoot up a school or other acts of violent rampages.

Here's what I don't get about the second amendment. If the second amendment guarantees the right, not the privilege, to bear arms in order to defend the populous from the tyranny of the state, then shouldn't the government have to provide it's citizens with weaponry in order to meet that right? And if the government has unmanned drones and long range nuclear capability then shouldn't the citizenry have access to unmanned drones and nukes too?

I don't see how the second amendment serves to protect us from tyranny anymore. I don't see Wriggle and his friends lasting very long in a pitched battle with a modern military, even if both sides were limited to using semi-automatic rifles. It seems like the second amendment is something of a sacred cow in this day and age.

That said, I don't think American citizens should be completely denied access to firearms. I think that it's a question of who do we allow to have what and where do we draw the line and how do we draw it.

So I've gathered this happens a lot.

The US is fucked up.

Maybe it's not the guns that are the problem.

Maybe it's the way that everyone is treated like an idiot in school, expected to learn the same things, think the same way, fill out worksheets that won't have any real world application? Maybe it has something to do with being forced to grow the same way as everybody else, being corralled together based on the date you were born like a bunch of livestock, being just another vessel to dump pre-decided knowledge into based on what your government thinks will be profitable in the long run?

It's the social setting. It's the education system. It's the result showing absolutely no growth in the education field since the time when the United States was actually an industrial society.

A civilization's worth is equal to the sum of all the problems it creates.

At 6/12/14 12:51 AM, Piggler wrote: It's the social setting. It's the education system. It's the result showing absolutely no growth in the education field since the time when the United States was actually an industrial society.

Everyone else can handle this whether or not they like it. I doubt that's the problem.

At 6/11/14 11:15 PM, exudaz wrote:

Why does this keep happening?

Because we are a society at war with itself

Why are guns still legal?

Because that's not the problem. If that were the case, there would be shootings 24/7.

At 6/12/14 12:56 AM, KillerSkull wrote: Everyone else can handle this whether or not they like it.

The fact that certain people feel that the best course of action is to mass murder people at school shows that's obviously not the case. Of course a lot of people are okay with it because they don't realize the true nature of the system in which they exist. Domesticated animals don't freak out about their cramped living quarters because it's all they know, so why would the general public freak out about the way things have been their entire lives?

At 6/11/14 11:55 PM, Me-Patch wrote: Here's what I don't get about the second amendment. If the second amendment guarantees the right, not the privilege, to bear arms in order to defend the populous from the tyranny of the state, then shouldn't the government have to provide it's citizens with weaponry in order to meet that right?

No, because rights aren't mandatory. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you have to say everything you think.

And if the government has unmanned drones and long range nuclear capability then shouldn't the citizenry have access to unmanned drones and nukes too?

Citizens have the rights to acquire heavy artillery, explosive ordinance, and yes, even WW2 atomic bombs.

I don't see how the second amendment serves to protect us from tyranny anymore. I don't see Wriggle and his friends lasting very long in a pitched battle with a modern military, even if both sides were limited to using semi-automatic rifles. It seems like the second amendment is something of a sacred cow in this day and age.

I don't think you understand. It's meant to protect the people from the government being able to take over and become all powerful and stuff, and if 150 million people all armed with modern weaponry revolted, there is no fucking way in hell that anything can stop them. And yes, there are that many guns and way way more in the US.

As for invasions on US soil, you do realize that the main reason Japan didn't invade the mainland is because the war minister knew that there were over 100 million people who would be armed with weapons equally as strong as theirs, right?

"Invading the US would be foolish suicide; there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

Yes, it might not seem like an unorganized mass of people with standard firearms wouldn't make a difference, but it would, dear god it would. 1 million professional troops vs. every able bodied person in America with a gun just as good as theirs and possibly even better, who do you think would win, even with tanks and aircraft?

That said, I don't think American citizens should be completely denied access to firearms. I think that it's a question of who do we allow to have what and where do we draw the line and how do we draw it.

Well yeah. Any rational person can figure out that the solution is tightly restricting access to military grade weapons. To own and operate anything military grade and up you should have to have a license, and to get any firearm of any kind you should have to go through extensive background checks.

The only reason we don't do that is because republicans are retarded as fucking shit.

At 6/11/14 11:15 PM, exudaz wrote: Why are guns still legal?

Why would guns be illegal?

When people speed, do you outlaw cars? Fatal auto accidents are for more common and frequent. So I say we ban corvettes.

But seriously, guns are not the problem. The problem with school shootings is 1) the black market for guns (created by gun control), and 2) insane people who want to harm children

guns are not the problem. People are.

Why? Because school is a shitty place for a lot of people and no one takes mental health seriously.

At 6/12/14 02:27 AM, Xenomit wrote: No, because rights aren't mandatory. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you have to say everything you think.

But you doing so is protected.

Citizens have the rights to acquire heavy artillery, explosive ordinance, and yes, even WW2 atomic bombs.

Wat?

It's meant to protect the people from the government being able to take over ....

Eh, not really. While we could potentially protect ourselves from govt via arming ourselves, mostly, people buy guns to protect their homes and families. Some shoot for sport, some hunt, some collect. But a vast majority of americans buy guns to protect themselves from muggers, carjacking, home invasions, etc. The revolutionary spin is a media fabrication to sell newspapers, so to speak. The government has much to gain when the country is split.

My best friend, a girl, owns a handgun. It has nothing to her wanting to kill a president, or shoot up a school. It's because she's in college, and her classes run into the night sometimes, and she walks to her car by herself. This is true with a large, large number of americans. We don't have the desire to shoot anyone, we buy them to protect our homes and ourselves.

Well yeah. Any rational person can figure out that the solution is tightly restricting access to military grade weapons. To own and operate anything military grade and up you should have to have a license, and to get any firearm of any kind you should have to go through extensive background checks.

And here's where I start taking issue with you. Military grade weapons are NOT accessible to civilians. I hear this from a lot of anti-gun people, and the FACT is, military grade weapons are not widely available to the public. They are out there, but insanely rare and hard to obtain.

The only people you'll ever see with a military grade weapon in your life, is a cop or soldier. They are not widely available to the public. There is one incredibly rare exception. They do exist and are available...BUT they are prohibitively expensive for a normal gun store patron...10s of thousands of dollars. And even if you can pony up the cash, you're going through mountains of legal paperwork and in some jurisdictions need a signoff from country sheriff AND the governor/

At 6/12/14 02:27 AM, Xenomit wrote: No, because rights aren't mandatory. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you have to say everything you think.

We could probably argue about the true meaning of an abstract concept like a right for days and accomplish nothing. I was using the dictionary definition of a right, which is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way", in order to make my point. In my thinking, if I'm entitled to something and I don't have it then I'm being deprived of it. If I'm entitled to vote in an election but the polls won't open then I'm being deprived of that right. Therefore, if I want to own an intercontinental ballistic missile but can't afford one shouldn't the government be obliged to help me in some way to exercise that right?

It's not what I actually think the amendment means. It's a hypothetical and hyperbolic proposition. It's an attempt to demonstrate that the language of the law is unclear and highly subject to interpretation.

Citizens have the rights to acquire heavy artillery, explosive ordinance, and yes, even WW2 atomic bombs.

Seriously? Citizens aren't allowed to own fully auto firearms but we can own nuclear weapons? While some insane things can still be acquired by people who pass through rigorous federal scrutiny, I assure you that no private citizen has any legal right to own heavy artillery, rockets or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

I don't think you understand. It's meant to protect the people from the government being able to take over and become all powerful and stuff, and if 150 million people all armed with modern weaponry revolted, there is no fucking way in hell that anything can stop them. And yes, there are that many guns and way way more in the US.

The most powerful and technologically advanced military in the history of the world, armed with enough nuclear firepower to wipe out mankind a thousand times over VS semi-auto rifles and handguns and some shotguns. It seems like a silly hypothetical scenario to indulge in anyway considering that such a war would likely lead to millions of deaths from the loss of infrastructure alone.

It's just an unrealistic scenario to be basing policy on. There are real problems with gun violence in this country, why should we be content to do nothing about it because we wouldn't want to jeopardize some weird secessionist fantasy?

As for invasions on US soil, you do realize that the main reason Japan didn't invade the mainland is because the war minister knew that there were over 100 million people who would be armed with weapons equally as strong as theirs, right?

"Invading the US would be foolish suicide; there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

The main reason that Japan didn't invade US soil is because they hadn't conclusively defeated our military. If you're that easily swayed by the beliefs of Isoroku Yamamoto here's an actual quote from him for you to consider: "Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House."

Sounds like he was more than willing to invade the US. That's probably because the quote that you're referencing is complete horse shit. He never said it and neither did anyone else in Japan. It's just something that people mindlessly repeat without even bothering to do a ten second google search to verify it's authenticity.

Yes, it might not seem like an unorganized mass of people with standard firearms wouldn't make a difference, but it would, dear god it would. 1 million professional troops vs. every able bodied person in America with a gun just as good as theirs and possibly even better, who do you think would win, even with tanks and aircraft?

Here's the thing about that. Did the people of Iraq have second amendment rights under Saddam Hussein? No. Are they currently fighting the occupation with only weapons that would be protected in the US by the second amendment? No. They're being supplied by nations and organizations sympathetic to their cause and hostile to the US. Why would a similar resistance movement in the US not be also? And more importantly, again I have to wonder why we need to shut down all discussion of progress and reform because it might effect our ability to defend ourselves against a non-existent enemy?

How come nobody ever asks why there are so many people who think mass murder is the only option, and how to help such people before it's too late?

People always make it about the guns.

This is the way I see it, after reading briefly about a mass shooting study conducted in response to columbine.

I strongly believe this happens mostly [emphasis on the mostly] because when people establish bullying as a normal human interaction, picking on the odd people who do not know how to adequately cope with it and fail to receive any intervening support in their favor, they occasionally happen to choose the wrong person to pick on in the first place.

Some of these people humor insane and manic thoughts as a result of a lack of supporting intervention, and then things backfire completely in the face of not only the people who were bullied but other people who probably were completely innocent in the whole matter when he goes completely rambo on his offending classmates... Then blame is pointed at the victim of these unfortunate circumstances. The victim obviously has no right to shoot up a school to begin with, but most of these people probably wouldn't have provoked these people to do so had they just been left alone in the first place.

Other times... Those shooters may just be completely homicidal or extremely heartless. Either way, there is something clearly not right with these people mentally [in my eyes], but this issue could maybe be addressed, potentially resolved and prevented with adequate psychological support & definitive personal boundaries clearly established in a school/classroom environment.

Most if not all bullies often do not take the mental health of the individual they chose to target into consideration. This is just my whole take on the matter, anyways.

At 6/12/14 04:19 AM, Urban-Champion wrote: and then things backfire completely in the face of not only the people who bullied but other people

This is what I meant dammit

If we replaced guns with swords then Americans would need to learn the art of samurai to protect their family and they wouldn't need to be so fucking fat.

these recent statistics on school shootings are actually fake, heres why.

Any incident with a gun discharging on school grounds is now labelled a school shooting, whether its a psycho columbine type thing or some dickhead who had an accidental discharge of a firearm on school grounds... of course schools are gun free zones btw.

At 6/11/14 11:22 PM, Ron-Geno wrote: It keeps happening because democrats want guns banned
so they hire thugs to shoot up schools
and then they lobby for guns to be banned after the shoot-up
*popcorn*

I have a similar theory, except it is a little different.
I (call me crazy), believe that they're hired to do this by the government. With the huge increase in school shootings, and shootings in general, it's allowing police to arm themselves to the teeth like they're military, and soon, every police officer is going to have the mentality of a soldier.

There's a reason that police are getting MRAP's and other military equipment. And why even small town's are getting military vehicles and weapons, and saying that the US is a warzone.

They have huge military vehicles and weaponry for intimidation now, in the article I linked right above this, the town's sheriff or whatever says that it's more intimidating than a SWAT van.
It will start with intimidation, and then it will become complete oppression. I really think that the US is just doing things one at a time, for one much bigger scenario between themselves (the government) and the general public.

Also, don't these military bases housing illegal immigrant children remind you even a tiny bit of the FEMA concentration camp theory?

Maybe I'm just losing it. I shouldn't be allowed to leave my basement. The world out there is too dangerous.

At 6/12/14 04:10 AM, Me-Patch wrote: And more importantly, again I have to wonder why we need to shut down all discussion of progress and reform because it might effect our ability to defend ourselves against a non-existent enemy?

We don't. I already said that it's retarded that republicans so desperately want to keep guns available to anyone who can breath.