[update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I just wish the BBC, ITV & Sky news would stop broadcasting these stories.

You want news & media outlets to stop broadcasting the news?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

You want news & media outlets to stop broadcasting the news?

Nice one, Chloé, but this does highlight the dilemma that the more you report these things, the more it seems to happen. Some people are inspired by these events.

However, I agree, the news needs to be reported.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

You want news & media outlets to stop broadcasting the news?

I think they should anonymise the shooters’ names, to deny them the ‘fame’ (or infamy).

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

You want news & media outlets to stop broadcasting the news?

In the UK yes, do you think they US broadcast the knife murders in the UK?

I doubt it.


I bet they don't give a dam, like me on gun crime in the US

[Chloé Palmas]

Actually they mention it all the time - that and acid based crime now.

Average conversation goes something to the effect of:

(Brady Ban supporter): If you Take guns off the streets you will see crime rates lowered

NRA member: Have you seen what happens in the UK with knife crime?

Ban advocate: So you think we should allow guns on the street to anyone who wants them?

2A advocate: Then you better ban cars, knives / acid and everything else, too.

As for you - you don't give a damn and don't like that they report it? Good for you...change the channel then. I am sure that some folks (like the BBC) have very regional news coverage for purely local issues, alone.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nice one, Chloé, but this does highlight the dilemma that the more you report these things, the more it seems to happen. Some people are inspired by these events.

However, I agree, the news needs to be reported.

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think they should anonymise the shooters’ names, to deny them the ‘fame’ (or infamy).

I agree with the fact that sometimes the infamy definitely does lead to copycat killings. For example, does anyone remember the Colorado massacre with James Holmes and the movie theater? Hickenlooper refused (even as head of the government) at the time to even mention James' name:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/co-gov...me-43855427652

Good on him and it comes from a place of principle.

I'll point out that we don't have a gun ban..just gun control and we should do the same for all the other weapons of choice including acid.

[Dude111]

That wouldnt stop things like this Maggy (Restricting guns)

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'll point out that we don't have a gun ban..just gun control and we should do the same for all the other weapons of choice including acid.

I would say that Gun Control is accurate but there is a total ban on handguns in the UK so on handguns, I would say ban. The weapons used in this attack were shot gun(s) but would have been banned in the UK as they are more than .22 caliber.

He also used explosives including Molotov cocktails which are banned in Texas, too - didn't exactly deter him, did it?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...uns-devos-says

Federal school safety panel will not look at role of guns, DeVos says

WASHINGTON — Education Secretary Betsy DeVos says the federal commission on school safety set up after a Florida high school shooting won’t be looking at the role of guns in school violence.

DeVos is telling a congressional hearing that’s not part of the commission’s charge.

She adds, “We are actually studying school safety and how we can ensure our students are safe at school.”

At the same time, a fact sheet posted on the White House web site says the commission will study “age restrictions for certain firearm purchases” among other topics. The discrepancy was not immediately clear.

DeVos is chairing the panel that President Donald Trump created following the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Seventeen students were killed.

The Commission set up after 17 High School students were killed by guns isn't going to look at the role of guns?

Cognitive dissonance, much?

[Chloé Palmas]

Devos probably isn't the best spokesperson for anything...she is not good at wording anything.

Still the basic theory is that this is an issue of murderers / homicidal maniacs. Not one where safety is quite the issue - safety would be say, this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY

Warning to viewers: That video contains footage of the accidental discharge of a firearm that results in injury of officer

That is more of an instruction on safety - Trump set up the panel more with the intent to look at the aspect of safety - i.e. how they brought weapons into the school (past detectors) / emergency response / lock down measures etc - not the weapon(s) itself (and their role).

She didn't word it very well but the panel was supposed to assess the situation on the ground(s) / real time / how the issue or shooter could be neutralized etc (like armed guards / campus police etc) not that of a behavioral psychologist as to ascertain the motives behind such events and or the politics of weapon bans and so on.

Her role as ES is to keep those institutes, kids and teachers all safe - a no brainer idea from some would be "ban guns from schools". Guess what, they already are - there is not much farther that she can go with that. Examine age restrictions? Pretty sure that no kid anywhere can wonder around with a gun. That is all taken care of - no need for her to endlessly hash over that.

That is why she needs to look beyond that otherwise the commission is rather a waste of time and money, no?

Originally Posted by Dude111

That wouldnt stop things like this Maggy (Restricting guns)

No.It wouldn't but it might possibly reduce it.However what is needed is a new mindset over the right to bear arms no matter what. That could take a millennia.

---------- Post added at 08:25 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

I would say that Gun Control is accurate but there is a total ban on handguns in the UK so on handguns, I would say ban. The weapons used in this attack were shot gun(s) but would have been banned in the UK as they are more than .22 caliber.

He also used explosives including Molotov cocktails which are banned in Texas, too - didn't exactly deter him, did it?

It's the word ban that sets the gun rights lobby going in the US whereas some Americans can deal with the words gun control a little better.

Anti gunners always start off with talk of gun control but quickly get to their ultimate goal of complete gun bans and that's when things go downhill they only use the term gun control because they know the majority of americans will not support total bans even non firearm owning americans want the right preserved.

[Chloé Palmas]

Right, most Americans will think "huh, if they can get rid of the second amendment then the first is no more protected" What about the 4th and 5th - the 14th is the holy grail of all abortionists, so will that go, too? (Hopefully lol).

Maggy...your comment almost seems like a "it's a way of getting round getting NRA / Gun owning families offside". For the most part though, the US doesn't use the word gun ban - as I was saying above, they mainly associate that with the UK.

In the US it is mainly a "gun control VS gun rights" issue as the basic premise is that control is an attempt to "control the right" of people to bear arms.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Anti gunners always start off with talk of gun control but quickly get to their ultimate goal of complete gun bans and that's when things go downhill they only use the term gun control because they know the majority of americans will not support total bans even non firearm owning americans want the right preserved.

#undebunkable

Remember when Obama took everyone’s guns, and put gun owners into FEMA camps?

No, me neither...

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Right, most Americans will think "huh, if they can get rid of the second amendment then the first is no more protected" What about the 4th and 5th - the 14th is the holy grail of all abortionists, so will that go, too? (Hopefully lol).

Maggy...your comment almost seems like a "it's a way of getting round getting NRA / Gun owning families offside". For the most part though, the US doesn't use the word gun ban - as I was saying above, they mainly associate that with the UK.

In the US it is mainly a "gun control VS gun rights" issue as the basic premise is that control is an attempt to "control the right" of people to bear arms.

But surely "a well-regulated militia" means there are controls on it?

Why are "controls" = "ban" - there are building regulations and controls, but they haven’t banned buildings...

What are you on about Hugh i never said anything about politicians i am talking about the anti gun lobby in the U.S that's trying to get restrictions in place before going for their ultimate goal of a total ban and they are not even subtle about it anymore. Show me where I've ever talked about obama taking guns or fema camps I'll wait though it will be a long wait.

Also there are controls on firearms in the U.S you can't just walk into a gun store pick a gun hand over the money and walk out. You have to pass a background check, full id must be given usually with your last utility bill and if you purchase more then 3 or 4 in a month you'll have the atf contacting you.