14 yo school shooter in Ohio

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ustrello**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ah the dwight schrute argument...

Huh?

Saying false, and adding nothing much else.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ustrello wrote:
Ah the dwight schrute argument, I guess mason running around yelling about slave revolts forcing madison to add the 2nd amendment had anything to do with it.

Fear of slave revolts was never the intended purpose of the Second Amendment. Anyone familiar with the history of that Amendment knows that was not the driving purpose behind it. The United States had just freed itself from British rule as a colony and established itself as a sovereign country. Hence the references to "free state", and resisting tyranny from the Founding Fathers. Slavery may have been a very minor consideration, but it was never the primary concern of the Second Amendment. To claim otherwise is wholly disingenuous, and has nothing to do with how the law currently stands.

**hotsauceman1**

oldravenman3025 wrote:

It has nothing to do with how I see it. It's all about how it really is.

We (gun owners) are not robots that march lock-step as a hive-mind, despite what the Brady Campaign or MSNBC might like to claim. And just because you own a gun, and like to make a big deal about it, doesn't make you part of a "gun culture". The Big Media editorial organs like to paint loudmouths and assclowns (like Nugent, to name an example) as representative of an American "gun culture". But that's patently false and, unfortunately, something the hoplophobes, and those who know little to nothing about guns, tend to swallow hook, line, and sinker.

But I will never convince you otherwise. So, it's best to just "agree to disagree" and let sleeping dogs lie.

Except that really is how it is. When you have asshats who go around touting the 2nd amendment as gospel, who push back against any legislation against their weapons, who think that just because they have a right to carry their weapon everywhere(Hint, you actually DONT) that is very much what gun culture is in the US. and it has lead to dangerous things, not the least of which is the Bundy Militia.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ustrello wrote:
Saying false, and adding nothing much else.

http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

An article at Truth Out by Thom Hartmann argues that the Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery, particularly to empower the state militia that used arms to enforce the institution through slave patrols. I wrote to Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, an historian who has written at some length about the history of American militia and whose working paper Deadweight Loss and the American Civil War: The Political Economy of Slavery, Secession, and Emancipation extensively discusses slave patrols as a key method by which slaveowners socialized the costs of slavery’s enforcement.

Hummel’s response to the Second Amendment slavery theory? Don’t buy it. Hartmann’s argument is overstated “to put it mildly.” In particular, the argument suffers from “presentism, back-dated from the Civil War, where everything that happened prior in U.S. history was driven by slavery.”

Hummel takes issue with some of the basic historical background in the Hartman piece, particularly “with the claim about ‘hundreds of substantial slave uprisings’ prior to the Constitution’s adoption. This would astonish most serious colonial historians.” Hummel explains the confusion:

Hartmann lifts this claim from the Carl T. Bogus article he cites, which in turn relies on Herbert Aptheker’s 1949 book, generally considered exaggerated even at the time it was published, before much additional research on slave revolts had made historians curious about their relative infrequency when compared with other slave societies in the New World. Nor were the few serious slave revolts during the colonial period confined to the South, with two in New York City (1712 and 1741).

Indeed, contrary to the reductionists, maintaining slavery was not the primary motivation lurking behind everyone’s actions at the Constitutional Convention.

The fact of the matter is that the Slave Power had not fully coalesced into a cohesive, dominant special interest by the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Opponents of the Constitution did of course sometimes use proslavery arguments, but this was hardly their primary concern, whether with respect to the Constitution generally or its militia clause specifically. And the change of the proposed Second Amendment’s wording from “free country” to “free State” is making a mountain of molehill. Hartmann doesn’t even get the story right, because as Bogus correctly reports, the change was made by the House committee, not by Madison.

(The House committee reviewing Madison’s proposed Bill of Rights had 11 members, one from each state. Madison was the representative from Virginia. There is no record of the committee’s deliberations. But since Madison had opposed creating the committee in the first place, preferring that the House consider the amendments directly, and since many of the members of the committee were initially opposed to a Bill of Rights, it is highly doubtful that Madison was responsible for the changed wording in ANY of the amendments as they were reported by the committee.)

The “more fundamental issue” here is the debate over the right to bear arms as an individual right, or a collective right. Hummel continues:

Bogus (Hartmann’s main source) is one of the prominent lawyers defending the collective-right theory of the Second Amendment. Constitutional lawyers generally write poor history, filled with special pleading (Leonard Levy being a notable exception), and especially when they write about the Second Amendment. Their biggest problem is that they know almost no genuine military history, and so their discussions of the militia are riddled with anachronistic errors.

At the time of the Constitution’s adoption every state had a compulsory militia for most able-bodied males, which performed military and police functions not just in the South but in the North as well. The voluntarization of the militia did not occur in the northern states until the Jacksonian era, with Delaware, actually a slave state, being the first in 1831. Moreover, while the Constitution authorized nationalization of the militia, this was a contentious political issue, and all serious attempts to implement it with legislation were defeated in Congress until the Spanish-American War inspired passage of the Dick Act of 1902. Thus, Bogus’s claim that the Constitution embodied an immutable definition of the militia is utter rubbish.

Hummel sent me an article by Roger I. Roots, “The Approaching Death of the Collective Right Theory of the Second Amendment,” in the Fall 2000 edition of the Duquesne Law Review (available here as a pdf). Roots specifically criticizes Bogus’s thesis that the Second Amendment was a stealth slavery provision (footnotes removed in quotation):

[A]ccording to Bogus, the. . . Second Amendment was an avenue for Southerners and Anti-Federalists, who had lost out in the overall design of the Constitution, to assert a buffer provision against the military power of the federal government. Unfortunately for this line of reasoning, a secret or “hidden” history is neither binding nor helpful in interpreting a constitutional provision. Nor is it nearly as clear, as Bogus suggests, that slavery supporters cowed at stating their support openly during the ratification debates. The Constitution does, after all, contain slavery provisions that were expressed (and thus “unhidden”) in the text—albeit in stifled wording. While these slavery provisions may contain “inscrutable language that the people could not readily understand,” they nonetheless were understood by people of the Founders’ era as slavery provisions. Bogus’s own writings yield scant primary evidence (which would be needed to take his argument on its face) of either any similar understanding regarding the Second Amendment or any secret correspondence among slavery supporters evidencing the notion that the Second Amendment was intended to enable slave states to obstruct the federal government should abolitionists ever gain control of it.

Roots also argues that the whole collective rights theory of the Second Amendment requires that we ignore a huge wealth of documentary evidence about what contemporaries thought the Amendment protected.

In order to operate to the exclusion of an individual right, the collective right doctrine seemingly requires the utter absence of documentary evidence that the Founders considered the Amendment as a protection of the right of individuals. Yet rarely is a collective right scholar brazen enough to assert that such evidence is nonexistent. The collective right argument instead depends upon the suppression, or at least the avoidance, of ratification era statements that described the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental individual right. Increasingly dogged research has shown that the historical record is relatively rich with statements by both the primary Founders (those who served as delegates to the ratifying conventions) and the secondary Founders (those who contributed ideas, editorials, or writings about the Constitution in public forums) expressing the viewpoint that keeping arms was a fundamental individual right and that the Second Amendment was designed to protect that right.

Much of this evidence can be found in Stephen Halbrook’s The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, the first book-length, extended rebuttal of the collective rights theory.

https://historyandancestry.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/was-the-2nd-amendment-about-preserving-slavery/

I come down pretty hard on the conservative pundits for distorting the 2nd Amendment; but this time, it seems it is the liberal pundits who are distorting history.

Today, the Facebook Group ‘Americans Against the Republican Party’ shared a rather bizarre post entitled, “Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery?” written by Nathaniel Downes. The research in the article, posted to the website Addicting Info, was not actually done by Mr. Downes, but by Thom Hartmann over at Truth-out.org (click the link to go to original article). His thesis statement:

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

But is this true? His best evidence (which I assume are the quotes he uses throughout the article) seems to fall short of proving his thesis. He draws heavily upon state articles written prior to the Constitution (and prior to the Revolution itself); e.g., in the year 1680, the governing committee at Jamestown, Virginia issued the proclamation that all blacks be disarmed and were prohibited from joining the militia. Mr. Hartmann also uses the laws, passed in Georgia, in the mid-late 1750’s as examples of how slaves were prohibited from being armed and were also to be put under the watchful eye by local militia. It should be clear, though, that this isn’t his thesis.

That slavery was an issue is not the debate; nor is pre-Revolutionary colonial society, nor are the individual state laws concerning slavery (because this is about the 2nd Amendment, after all). The real question should be: what evidence does Mr. Hartmann present that would otherwise prove his point that ‘the Second Amendment was ratified…to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states’?

In fact, while Mr. Hartmann does provide an abundance of quotes from Madison, Mason, and Henry (and he aptly points out they were slave owners), the only one of any real significance is this one from Henry:

“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”

But notice that ‘[slave]’ is in lacunae. Lacunae ‘[brackets like this]’ indicate that this word is not in the original text, but was added by the author of the article. So the original quote goes, “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections.” It is important to recognize that insurrections were a serious issue during the period of the framing of the constitution and the founding era itself, but it had nothing to do ipso facto with people of color.

This isn’t to suggest that slavery and the arming of African Americans in the south wasn’t something that white slave owners feared; my goodness, it certainly was a huge terror to them. The British utilized the freeing of slaves to devastating effect during the Revolution (as many as 100,000 slaves took up arms with the British against their white oppressors during the war), and Mr. Hartmann is correct that it started, essentially, with Lord Dunmore (though it was Sir Henry Clinton, British Commander-in-Chief, who really got the ball rolling). Yet again, the issue is not whether the south feared a slave uprising or the freeing of all slaves (of which there is clear evidence), but whether the 2nd Amendment itself and those Southern framers of the constitution, as Mr. Hartmann claims, ‘wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government.’ To this, I’m sorry to say, Mr Hartmann has not made his case.

The whole point of even having a Constitutional Convention–the very reason the need for a new central governing document in fact–was over the fear of tax insurrections. The most vital being Shays’ Rebellion (which you can read all about here). Shays’ Rebellion was not about people of African descent rebelling against slavery, but started over the failure of the current government, under the Articles of Confederation, to distribute back pay to veterans of the American Revolution (and the stiff taxes upon land and property in Massachusetts under the state legislature under those Articles of Confederation; slavery was not even an issue since it had been essentially an abandoned practice in New England). Following the initial failures to put down the resurrection by the state militia, the framers of the constitution debated the issue as to whether states or the central federal government should be permitted to allot military action and arm individuals.

It may very well be that slavery was part of the issue for Southern delegates, but if so, it doesn’t come up in any of the debates directly, and that is a serious problem for Mr. Hartmann’s argument. Because there is clearly some vagueness as to whether or not Henry is disputing the federal authority over his right to maintain slaves or whether in fact he is concerned about tax uprisings in the south like those faced by the state of Massachusetts. It may actually be both, but Henry does not bring up slaves directly (Mr. Hartmann believes that his statement is ‘blunt’ about it, but it’s not remotely clear about slavery at all) and therefore we might speculate about his motives, but it will never be more than a baseless assertion.

It is important to note a few final items concerning this issue; first and foremost, the 2nd Amendment did actually help put down additional tax rebellions during George Washington’s presidency (the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania) and during John Adam’s presidency (Fries’ Rebellion in Eastern Pennsylvania). Second, the 2nd Amendment failed the United States in the War of 1812. The state sanctioned militia turned out to be no match against hardened British regulars and it was only when the federal troops (US Regulars) were deployed that the tides of the war began to change. Third, and perhaps most ironically, the 2nd Amendment was used by Lincoln to put down the uprising of the southern states and slave owners in a conflict that we know as the American Civil War. And I would add that the arming of African Americans, while initially troubling to Southerners, eventually became a less-important issue towards the end of the war as troops were desperately needed.

So while the conservative myth, that the 2nd Amendment is made to support the people against the authority of their federal government, is a false one (the 2nd Amendment was formulated with the intended purpose to help the federal and state governments subdue uprisings by citizens against the government itself); it is also a myth to claim that the 2nd Amendment was only about, or even mostly about, preserving slavery. This liberal myth, like the conservative myth, must be put to rest.

So, as previously stated, your accusation is false and revisionist.

**Ustrello**

Why was the term “free State” used, rather than “free Country”? Actually, the term “free Country” appeared in the first version of the Second Amendment. However, the term was changed to appease slave owners. Why? Because prominent southern slaveholders wanted the Bill of Rights to sanction slave control militias. As we shall see, some of the slaveholding founding fathers made this — as Tricky Dick Nixon might have put it — “perfectly clear.”

As slavery researcher H. M. Henry noted, "Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system ... it was a gigantic police system." This tyrannical police state was largely administered through brutal slave control militias. Unfortunately, if the free states wanted to have a Union, they would have to make a “deal with the Devil” in the form of a terrible compromise with the slave states over these diabolical organizations.

In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus offers an interesting thesis: James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militias, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.

At the time that James Madison changed the wording of the Second Amendment to appease slaveholders, eight states had ratified the proposed Constitution, but a ninth was needed to make it official. The fate of the United States hung in the balance, because four states were opposed to ratification. The last best hope of a “more perfect Union” was Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were Virginians, and slaveholders. Thus, the primary authors of the foundational documents of then-fledgling Union knew full well what it would take to seal the deal. Virginians would have to be assured that they could keep their slaves, which meant assuring them that they could keep their slave control militias, because the former could not survive without the latter.

http://www.thehypertexts.com/Slavery%20and%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Slave%20Patrol%20Militias.htm

**Dreadclaw69**

Ustrello wrote:
Why was the term “free State” used, rather than “free Country”? Actually, the term “free Country” appeared in the first version of the Second Amendment. However, the term was changed to appease slave owners. Why? Because prominent southern slaveholders wanted the Bill of Rights to sanction slave control militias. As we shall see, some of the slaveholding founding fathers made this — as Tricky Dick Nixon might have put it — “perfectly clear.”

As slavery researcher H. M. Henry noted, "Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system ... it was a gigantic police system." This tyrannical police state was largely administered through brutal slave control militias. Unfortunately, if the free states wanted to have a Union, they would have to make a “deal with the Devil” in the form of a terrible compromise with the slave states over these diabolical organizations.

In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus offers an interesting thesis: James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militias, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.

At the time that James Madison changed the wording of the Second Amendment to appease slaveholders, eight states had ratified the proposed Constitution, but a ninth was needed to make it official. The fate of the United States hung in the balance, because four states were opposed to ratification. The last best hope of a “more perfect Union” was Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were Virginians, and slaveholders. Thus, the primary authors of the foundational documents of then-fledgling Union knew full well what it would take to seal the deal. Virginians would have to be assured that they could keep their slaves, which meant assuring them that they could keep their slave control militias, because the former could not survive without the latter.

http://www.thehypertexts.com/Slavery%20and%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Slave%20Patrol%20Militias.htm

You are citing research that was debunked above; http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

Your claim that the Second Amendment was "was written to help put down slave revolts" has been shown to be false. While I may accept that some minor consideration may have been given to it at the time, that is not nor has ever been the purpose of the Second Amendment.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Cincydooley, what shooting are you talking about and what do you think is the reason it isn't covered?

**cincydooley**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Cincydooley, what shooting are you talking about and what do you think is the reason it isn't covered?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/us/kansas-shooting/

I believe it's not being covered for two primary reasons that don't include his age:

1. He's black, and mass shooters aren't supposed to be black.
2. They know his guns were obtained illegally (his ladyfriend has already been indicted).

Neither of those two points fit the "guns are too easy to get for white people to mass shoot" narrative.

**Hordini**

Ahtman wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
On the flip-side,it can be argued that the strict gun and self-defense laws in the U.K. are a sign that the British pawn off all responsibility of personal safety from criminals to government. Which is both a sign of complacency and laziness.

It could be argued, sure, but it would sound like a flying rodent gak insane.

It's not that crazy of an argument. You might not agree with it, and I'm not saying it's completely correct, but if we're going to argue that gun laws in America are based on a reflection of American values that breed complacency and laziness in the handling of guns, oldravenman3025's suggestion isn't really any more outlandish in comparison. I've seen more than one post by European members on this very forum speak about how the state of affairs in most European countries, in which the government has a monopoly on violence is the right and proper way things should be done.

Again, I'm not saying you need to agree with it or that it can't be called into question, but it's not a "flying rodent gak insane" argument by any stretch.

**Ahtman**

Hordini wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
oldravenman3025 wrote:
On the flip-side,it can be argued that the strict gun and self-defense laws in the U.K. are a sign that the British pawn off all responsibility of personal safety from criminals to government. Which is both a sign of complacency and laziness.

It could be argued, sure, but it would sound like a flying rodent gak insane.

It's not that crazy of an argument.

No, saying British people "pawn off all responsibility of personal safety from criminals to government" is pretty fething crazy; it is an extreme oversimplification. It is like saying everyone in Texas has a revolver and goes around shooting everyone. There are arguments to be made against British style gun control, sure, but this isn't a very good one.

**Kilkrazy**

cincydooley wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Cincydooley, what shooting are you talking about and what do you think is the reason it isn't covered?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/us/kansas-shooting/

I believe it's not being covered for two primary reasons that don't include his age:

1. He's black, and mass shooters aren't supposed to be black.
2. They know his guns were obtained illegally (his ladyfriend has already been indicted).

Neither of those two points fit the "guns are too easy to get for white people to mass shoot" narrative.

Yet there it is, right on the CNN homepage, supposedly a noted organ of the political left in the USA.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
want, then take it home without being checked at the border, because there are no real restrictions on gun ownership, only on gun purchase.

Incorrect. One cannot go to another state and legally buy a firearm.

To slightly expand upon what you said, you can buy a firearm in another state, legally - I bought my 1911 in Illinois. However, you can't take possession of it there - they ship it to a firearms dealer in your state, and you pick it up there in line with (whatever your state laws are).

Obviously, you know this, but I was clarifying for those who might not.

cincydooley wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/us/kansas-shooting/

I believe it's not being covered for two primary reasons that don't include his age:

1. He's black, and mass shooters aren't supposed to be black.
2. They know his guns were obtained illegally (his ladyfriend has already been indicted).

Neither of those two points fit the "guns are too easy to get for white people to mass shoot" narrative.

That feeling when you flesh out a idea that a shooting won't get covered because of media narrative agenda, and helpfully open with a link from CNN.

If you're saying why it wasn't posted in the Dakka OT, then probably because if there was a new thread every time where was a mass shooting there's be a new one here every like, 20 hours. Obviously from looking at this forum on a regular basis a very large percentage don't get posted here.

**Kilkrazy**

Britain used to be a violent country in the middle ages, and the Bill of Rights of 1689 contained a clause on arms, as follows:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

Thus there has always been a concept that possesion of weapons is not an individual right, but is subject to social control.

I suspect that a major reason why the British accept strict gun control is that we have never armed our police. Criminals have never been very keen on shooters, and the public has never felt much at threat from armed criminals or police.

When you remove the ideas of self-defence against crooks or the police, the main reasons for wanting guns are:

Target shooting.
Shooting and stalking.

The first two mass shootings in the UK were carried out by in retrospect clearly mentally unstable guys using an assault rifle and a collection of non-target pistols. Such guns are no use for target shooting, shooting or stalking. Their main use in the UK was a power fetish object.

This convinced the public that alllowing such weapons in private hands was dangerous, and two Acts were passed to remove such weapons from circulation. Unfortunately, target-shooting pistols (Olympic type) were rolled up into the same ban, which may not have been necessary.

However, this left us with shotguns and bolt-action rifles. You can get on licence but you have to qualify by joining a club, getting a safety certificate, installing safes for the weapons and ammo, and not having a criminal or mental health record. As someone said earlier, you wouldn't bother to do all this unless you had a good reason.

The situation in the USA is very different. For a lot of people, it's part of their mental picture of their identity as an American to have a gun. This derives from the 2nd amendment.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Unfortunately, target-shooting pistols (Olympic type) were rolled up into the same ban, which may not have been necessary

Wait, .22LR semis are banned there? That's what I think of when I think of Olympic pistols, anyway.

If so, shame - I just got a 22/45 that I am accurizing and it's quickly becoming my favorite target gun.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes, you can't have any pistol except a black powder weapon or an air pistol.

Our Olympic pistol team has to go to France to practice.

The 25m and 50m pistol events could only be held at the 2012 Olympics by special dispensation.

**Ouze**

That sucks :/

Sorry for the digression, also.

**Kilkrazy**

I think it's a digression that is relevant to the overall topic of gun safety and gun crime.

**Smacks**

yellowfever wrote:
@smacks. Is my spelling ok for you this time.

Don't do it for me, do it for yourself. I really am sorry if I embarrassed you, but the truth is, I'm not the only one who appreciates good grammar. For example, a GSM London study found that spelling and grammar mistakes came top of the list of things that employers find annoying in CVs. Hundreds of people will read your posts here, people who don't know anything about you. If they see you consistently misusing words like they're and you're, then (just like employers) they're going to start making negative judgements about your level of education, intelligence and diligence. You do your ideas an injustice when you write them in a stupid way; if you don't take your ideas seriously enough to write them properly, then why should you expect readers to take them seriously? This is a big moment in your life: you can either keep making your silly remarks at me, which I couldn't care less about; or you can accept what I'm telling you, stop making that mistake, and start getting taken more seriously by everyone who reads your posts from this moment on. It's your call.

**Kilkrazy**

Good spelling and grammar actually is a rule of the site. We have a lot of readers whose first language is not English, and it is harder for them to translate bad English than good English.

We also (the Admins and Mod team) actually like good English and prefer to see it used on our own account.

That said, it's not something individual users should get themselves too wrought up about, on either side of the argument.

**Frazzled**

Hey guys, how about you have the weekly guns good/ guns bad thread in another thread and not in the one about the fourteen year old shooting people.

**Deadshot**

Ohio seems to be going down the gakker for this. My best friend stayed with an American family a couple of years ago, and the daughter she went to school with there was sent an email about saftey and stuff. Apparently some guy had a full plan to do a shooting and police are involved and gak. That was in Cincinatti, Wyoming High School.

**Herzlos**

oldravenman3025 wrote:

On the flip-side,it can be argued that the strict gun and self-defense laws in the U.K. are a sign that the British pawn off all responsibility of personal safety from criminals to government. Which is both a sign of complacency and laziness.

Or that the witnessed a horrible mass shooting in a primary school, and though "WTF do we let people have handguns? We should restrict them" and the population agreed "Jolly good shout my good fellow". That was 20 years ago and it's a pretty rare thing now (since the only example I can think of was in 1996). Now you need a license (and justification) to have a rifle/shotgun, handguns are right out, and the application process is pretty strict (police report, character references, I think a home visit to see where it'll be stored).

By horrible mass shooting in a school, there were 17 killed, which is unthinkable to the Brits but seems to be a pretty standard school shooting to Americans.

I'm also not sure I've ever seen any research showing that owning a gun *increases* personal safety. Plenty of claims that it reduces it though; almost no-one is trained or competent enough to use them safely in an emergency situation.

**cincydooley**

Kilkrazy wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Cincydooley, what shooting are you talking about and what do you think is the reason it isn't covered?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/us/kansas-shooting/

I believe it's not being covered for two primary reasons that don't include his age:

1. He's black, and mass shooters aren't supposed to be black.
2. They know his guns were obtained illegally (his ladyfriend has already been indicted).

Neither of those two points fit the "guns are too easy to get for white people to mass shoot" narrative.

Yet there it is, right on the CNN homepage, supposedly a noted organ of the political left in the USA.

It wasn't on the home page, and quite frankly the fact that a number of people had not heard about it speaks to the exact coverage to which I was referring.

But sure, pretend it's the same.

**angelofvengeance**

So, do we have a motive for this kid yet or not?

**cincydooley**

angelofvengeance wrote:
So, do we have a motive for this kid yet or not?

According to our news this morning, bullying has been ruled out.

The kid also denied the charges.

**Dreadclaw69**

Herzlos wrote:
I'm also not sure I've ever seen any research showing that owning a gun *increases* personal safety. Plenty of claims that it reduces it though; almost no-one is trained or competent enough to use them safely in an emergency situation.

Citation needed please

**Ouze**

cincydooley wrote:

It wasn't on the home page, and quite frankly the fact that a number of people had not heard about it speaks to the exact coverage to which I was referring.

But sure, pretend it's the same.

You're really doubling down on a bad argument with this one.

There was enormous coverage of this story, it was in my facebook side feed for days, which is more than nearly any of our daily mass shootings get. You can keep trying to make fetch happen if you like, but if you're now using a small handful of people on the off-topic section of a miniature wargame site for your gauge for how widely a media story got covered, I think that says more about you (and how willing you are to shore up a bad argument with spackles of garbage) than it does about the story.

Also, as a side note, it was on CNN's front page for at least a day, most of the time with 2 different links to 2 different stories on it. Which will it be now - move the goalposts or forge the narrative?

**BobtheInquisitor**

Honestly, I heard about both shooting through Dakka. Outside of the election stuff, I rarely visit news sites these days.

**Kilkrazy**

One is tempted to make the cynical comment that the USA has so many mass shootings that they are no longer very news worthy, especially when the primaries campaign offers continual drama.

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
Frozocrone wrote:
Why are guns so easily accessible? I'm not talking about purchasing guns, I imagine there are checks done that are very thorough to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands. I'm talking about how parents basically show the gun on display for children to use. I only recently heard about a pre-teen girl shot to death because the neighbour's son got a little mad.

Only in some states. In others, buying a gun is like buying a knife here... and the bad people who want guns can just go to a less well regulated state, buy whatever the heck they want, then take it home without being checked at the border, because there are no real restrictions on gun ownership, only on gun purchase.

Incorrect. One cannot go to another state and legally buy a firearm.

Not sure where you are getting your information. I have a Michigan drivers license. I've bought firearms in Missouri, and Illinois, from big name stores, not seedy corner dealers.

You can buy a firearm in any state. The difference is that if you were an Illinois resident (48 hour waiting period), the dealers in Missouri are required to meet that waiting period, even though Missouri doesn't have one.