Another senseless mass shooting

[fla4fun]

If the world stopped making the weapons in the first place, it would change the majority of human culture.

I am not so sure. Many ordinary objects can be used by someone to harm or kill another, all the way down to simply using your hands or feet to inflict injury. From Cain and Abel to the present day, there have been people who want to harm others and will use whatever is available to do so. As much as I would like to think it’s as simple as not producing weapons, people who are intent on causing harm will simply use something else, whether it’s driving a car into a crowd or picking up sharp kitchen utensils or a rock in the forest to use instead.

It’s obvious that things are not working the way they are right now. It’s going to take change in many areas, such as mental health and anger management, as well as changes in background checks, training and licensing. My frustration is that no one seems to want to put in the work or expense long term that it is going to take to come up with a workable solution. Sadly, even when we get to the point where it happens rarely, I don’t think we will eliminate it completely, but I feel a reduction would be better than nothing.

 

[Buzz Rules]

I am not so sure. Many ordinary objects can be used by someone to harm or kill another, all the way down to simply using your hands or feet to inflict injury. From Cain and Abel to the present day, there have been people who want to harm others and will use whatever is available to do so. As much as I would like to think it’s as simple as not producing weapons, people who are intent on causing harm will simply use something else, whether it’s driving a car into a crowd or picking up sharp kitchen utensils or a rock in the forest to use instead.

It’s obvious that things are not working the way they are right now. It’s going to take change in many areas, such as mental health and anger management, as well as changes in background checks, training and licensing. My frustration is that no one seems to want to put in the work or expense long term that it is going to take to come up with a workable solution. Sadly, even when we get to the point where it happens rarely, I don’t think we will eliminate it completely, but I feel a reduction would be better than nothing.

I’m only talking about guns. War will always happen. If the USA only allowed citizens to only have muskets, as an example, that would lower mass shootings instantly. World peace is unattainable. I would rather wars be fought with bows and arrows/swords and shields than modern weaponry. I know that’s unrealistic but it would force countries to think about the human cost more in a conflict then just pressing a button or using a robot. It would force leaders to actually find honorable solutions by talking it out.

 

[ronandannette]

The difference is that Germany doesn't have this kind of shooting on a regular basis like we do in the US.

No other country does, actually. While there are more violent places overall (see link), there's nowhere that these mass-shooting incidents are common.

NOTE: This data is outdated (2016) but I really like the way they also tally suicides and casualty by unintentional discharge. Those give a little different view of the potential impact of guns, beyond just the use in homicides.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-violence-by-country

 

[ronandannette]

I’m only talking about guns. War will always happen. If the USA only allowed citizens to only have muskets, as an example, that would lower mass shootings instantly. World peace is unattainable. I would rather wars be fought with bows and arrows/swords and shields than modern weaponry. I know that’s unrealistic but it would force countries to think about the human cost more in a conflict then just pressing a button or using a robot. It would force leaders to actually find honorable solutions by talking it out.

And how exactly does anybody force anybody to do anything without measures of coercion? While the sentiments are understandable, neither global conflict or harm reduction at local levels is ever going to be meaningfully addressed by superficial thinking.

 

[sam_gordon]

I would rather wars be fought with bows and arrows/swords and shields than modern weaponry. I know that’s unrealistic but it would force countries to think about the human cost more in a conflict then just pressing a button or using a robot. It would force leaders to actually find honorable solutions by talking it out.

So when the best weapons of the times were bows and arrows/swords and shields, there were no battles? The leaders found "honorable solutions by talking it out"? I mean you apparently think if those are the weapons countries had at their disposal, it would cut out war, right?

Sorry, I'm not following your logic.

 

[Moliphino]

No other country does, actually. While there are more violent places overall (see link), there's nowhere that these mass-shooting incidents are common.

NOTE: This data is outdated (2016) but I really like the way they also tally suicides and casualty by unintentional discharge. Those give a little different view of the potential impact of guns, beyond just the use in homicides.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-violence-by-country

The stats on child deaths are also very telling.

https://www.kff.org/global-health-p...earm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/

 

[Buzz Rules]

So when the best weapons of the times were bows and arrows/swords and shields, there were no battles? The leaders found "honorable solutions by talking it out"? I mean you apparently think if those are the weapons countries had at their disposal, it would cut out war, right?

Sorry, I'm not following your logic.

Treaties were honored more. Wars happened but the human cost/money cost was taken into account way more. Cities were destroyed but entire nations weren’t.

 

[GAN]

If guns were banned completely on earth, that would be a start.

Even my beloved water pistol???

 

[Buzz Rules]

And how exactly does anybody force anybody to do anything without measures of coercion? While the sentiments are understandable, neither global conflict or harm reduction at local levels is ever going to be meaningfully addressed by superficial thinking.

Are treaties signed by nations superficial?

 

[Buzz Rules]

Even my beloved water pistol???

 

[GAN]

Sorry... slow day at work and we haven't started drinking yet

 

[TeamRiley]

Treaties were honored more. Wars happened but the human cost/money cost was taken into account way more. Cities were destroyed but entire nations weren’t.

I think you need to brush up some on World History.

 

[Buzz Rules]

I think you need to brush up some on World History.

In general, cities were sacked but nations that other empires wanted to add (land wise) were left in one peace.

 

[ronandannette]

Are treaties signed by nations superficial?

Are there actually any treaties worded the way your post was?

A

 

[ronandannette]

The stats on child deaths are also very telling.

https://www.kff.org/global-health-p...earm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/

O.M.G. I am gobsmacked by that. How can it be the #1 cause of pediatric death - the #1 cause...how?!?

 

[mrodgers]

The difference is that Germany doesn't have this kind of shooting on a regular basis like we do in the US.

How did the German Weapons Act work out for some folks in 1938?

 

[CdnCarrie]

O.M.G. I am gobsmacked by that. How can it be the #1 cause of pediatric death - the #1 cause...how?!?

We just had a 4 year old shoot a 6 year old here in Manitoba. Child is okay. Hunting rifle left out where children got it.

How did the German Weapons Act work out for some folks in 1938?

Are you worried about Nazis in Pennsylvania?

 

[mrodgers]

I’m only talking about guns. War will always happen. If the USA only allowed citizens to only have muskets, as an example, that would lower mass shootings instantly. World peace is unattainable. I would rather wars be fought with bows and arrows/swords and shields than modern weaponry. I know that’s unrealistic but it would force countries to think about the human cost more in a conflict then just pressing a button or using a robot. It would force leaders to actually find honorable solutions by talking it out.

So, no guns for the people, just guns for the ones who are the reason we in this country are allowed to have guns? War doesn't just happen between countries. It happens within countries as well. The US has a bit of history based on that.

 

[mrodgers]

We just had a 4 year old shoot a 6 year old here in Manitoba. Child is okay. Hunting rifle left out where children got it.




Are you worried about Nazis in Pennsylvania?

Go to RCGroups.com off-topic section and we can talk about it. We can't talk about it here.


One thing that is evident, all we're going to do in this thread is go around in circles for days like with every other same topic thread.

 

[EACarlson]

O.M.G. I am gobsmacked by that. How can it be the #1 cause of pediatric death - the #1 cause...how?!?

It's not. You have to look at the ages they included and what they counted and what they excluded. They included those up to age 19, and excluded those less than 1. If you were to exclude those under 16, it's a completely different statistic. The leading cause of firearm related deaths of those 16-19, gang violence perpetrated by other teenagers.