Elementary School Shooting

Enjay said:

So shoots and so on are well attended by people with money and business power but not necessarily a traditional "high" social position.

Right, but can we agree that shooting isn't a sport typically associated with the working class, farmers who own shotguns notwithstanding?

You can buy a day of clay pigeon shooting for £60 or something, at certain shooting clubs. It's not the exclusive preserve of the super-rich and royalty. But I've just never heard anyone working in an low-paid job say "I go shooting" in the same way that they might say "I play football" or "I like playing pool in the pub". Perhaps there's a certain stigma against it, but that's another story.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

Right, but can we agree that shooting isn't a sport typically associated with the working class, farmers who own shotguns notwithstanding?

Well, as I mentioned, I have worked in schools with a shooting club and the kids that were members were just "normal" people.

However, as a general rule I agree, it's not a typically "working class" sport and the people taking part are usually well off via one means or another. The working class people involved tend to be working as beaters rather than firing the guns. I wasn't really disputing the principle of what you said; just saying that things in Scotland tend, perhaps, to be a little less closely tied to the class system as they are further south. Generally, Scotland is more socialist than much of England is (witness the number of Scottish Conservative seats in Westminster (currently 1 seat of 59 Scottish seats IIRC)).

Share this post


Link to post
Enjay said:

Generally, Scotland is more socialist than much of England is (witness the number of Scottish Conservative seats in Westminster (currently 1 seat of 59 Scottish seats IIRC)).


Also, tuition fees in Scottish universities (affordable to the middle class) vs. English universities (better be from a wealthy family or be ready to pay back your student loans for twenty five years).

Share this post


Link to post
valkiriforce said:

And then this happened.


Why the fuck destroy them? THose look like original xbox games, make some fucking money on eBay.

Also, without enlarging the Youtube screen, the dad seems to carry a vague resemblance to Dennis Quaid wearing a hat.

Share this post


Link to post

Kid: Welp, better get rid of my violent games before they make me shoot up a school, too. I suggest all kids follow suit.


CNN: Oh, this is so commendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Caffeine Freak said:

Kid: Welp, better get rid of my violent games before they make me shoot up a school, too. I suggest all kids follow suit.


CNN: Oh, this is so commendable.


It's too late for me to get rid of all my Doom...
Well guess I'd better head out with a pistol then.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that qualifies as one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post

Also, the fact that "the right to bear arms" was built-in the US Constitution (even if via an amendment, so a-posteriori), can be seen as yet another attempt to make a clean "break off" and create a polar opposite with the Old Way of the former British rulers: the British had a King, the US would have a president. In England only the upper class could bear arms, in the New World under the New Way of doing things, everyone had this right (well..except blacks and Indians, but that's another story...)

OK perhaps it was not really that simplistic, but it surely played a role, like the decision to ride/drive on the right, unlike the old British masters/

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

I think that qualifies as one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.


As misguided as the gesture is, at least the kids are making a gesture out against gun violence. For children, this is a very honorable thing to do. I can't think of any kids I know willing to give up their video games for anything, let alone something of such an indirect and abstract rationale.

I just wish they looked at destroying the games in more of a symbolic than practical manner, but if that were the case we probably wouldn't have the cynical commentary we see here.

Share this post


Link to post
flubbernugget said:

As misguided as the gesture is, at least the kids are making a gesture out against gun violence. For children, this is a very honorable thing to do. I can't think of any kids I know willing to give up their video games for anything, let alone something of such an indirect and abstract rationale.

I just wish they looked at destroying the games in more of a symbolic than practical manner, but if that were the case we probably wouldn't have the cynical commentary we see here.

Ok, I'll explain myself:-

It's not the kids' misguided gesture that bothers me, it's their father's irresponsible "My kids are so wise and mature that they don't need my guidance" attitude that I find absurd. The "honourable" thing to do would be to donate those games to some terminally ill children instead of trashing them; I don't suppose that a child in the thrall of chemotherapy would be remotely affected by the alleged effect that violent games can have, if there's even a shred of truth to it. Naturally, this would make for an "anti-climactic" piece of news, but to the discerning viewer the symbolism - however naive - of parting company with something they believe is wrong would remain intact.

Of course, this is assuming the whole thing isn't staged, which is debatable.

Maes said:

Also, the fact that "the right to bear arms" was built-in the US Constitution (even if via an amendment, so a-posteriori), can be seen as yet another attempt to make a clean "break off" and create a polar opposite with the Old Way of the former British rulers: the British had a King, the US would have a president. In England only the upper class could bear arms, in the New World under the New Way of doing things, everyone had this right (well..except blacks and Indians, but that's another story...)

That, and British soldiers were ordered to destroy every gun they found that belonged to the colonial uprising during the earliest stages of American independence. I suspect the Founding Fathers saw the gun as a symbol of freedom as much as a personal tool with which to defend yourself, or a cultural novelty.

On that subject, despite my generally "pro-gun" point of view, I don't think they had any idea in the late 18th Century what the Second Amendment would entail 200 years down the line. A modern automatic assault rifle is a rather different piece of equipment compared to an antique musket. Trying to go on a one-man shooting rampage with the latter would be not much more effective (in the most objective sense of the term) than using a knife or a sword.

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, I wonder who bought those 'mature, violent games' for them, considering they're 12 yo.

Share this post


Link to post
Belial said:

Heh, I wonder who bought those 'mature, violent games' for them, considering they're 12 yo.

Indeed. His argument for that is basically "They're good kids, they wouldn't hurt anyone", but he's failing them by not guiding them on a more sensible course of action, even if their hearts are in the right place.

Share this post


Link to post

Did that prick from the NRA just suggest we register the "mentally ill?"

Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
valkiriforce said:

And then this happened.


I hope those kids enjoyed their false scapegoat.....

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

Did that prick from the NRA just suggest we register the "mentally ill?"

Heh, with maybe 25% of the adult population having a diagnosable mental disorder each year, that's a lot of people to register.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seldom seen such rampant ignorance as displayed in this video. I'm referring of course, to everyone except Penn Jillette.




Did she really claim that any semi-auto can easily be converted to full-auto? Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post

Unpopular opinion time: If we are going to blame anyone for this mess, the kids mother should be the one to blame. Yes, I do know he killed her before be attacked the school. But, that does not change the fact that it was her failure as a parent and as a responsible gun owner that lead to this.

Why? For starters her son had mental issues and his his behavior suggested he might be a danger to himself and/or others. Given this, she should NOT, under any circumstances,have had a gun in her house. No matter what type of gun it was. If for some stupid reason she felt the need to have a firearm in her house it should have been properly secured. A locking bullet proof case and a trigger lock will cost you less then $100 for a AR-15. She then could have locked in a trunk under her bed or in her bedroom closet. She also could have bought a gun safe for it. If you have people living with you there is simply excuse for not have your firearms under lock and key. This is especially true if you have a child or someone with issues living with you. Something tells me if she had the gun secured or didn't have it in the house, this would not have happened.

Share this post


Link to post

GreyGhost said:
Heh, with maybe 25% of the adult population having a diagnosable mental disorder each year, that's a lot of people to register.

Considering a large portion of that is people in situations of social vulnerability, including poverty and a lack of social insertion, it tends to make certain classes of people have an even easier relative access to guns compared to others that get marginalized even further.

Satyr000 said:
Unpopular opinion time: If we are going to blame anyone for this mess, the kids mother should be the one to blame.

Reiterative incidents show this is a social issue that needs large scale changes, which can't be reduced to individualistic considerations... which by now are indeed more or less moot with the death of the mother and the perpetrator.

Controlling gun traffic is much easier and effective than controlling human decision making. And with all the talk of "freedom", it's also less invasive.

Share this post


Link to post
GreyGhost said:

If a deranged gunman thinned the ranks of the Westboro baptists, I don't know if I'd laugh or cry.


It would be a miracle from God himself.

Share this post


Link to post

"Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves? What a bunch of liberal boobs you all are."

Share this post


Link to post
retard said:

I would be easier, and more accurate, to make a list of all the people taking prescription psychotropic "medication",and that should never be allowed access to guns...

...so a good chunk of gun owners when you take into account one in ten Americans are prescribed a psychotropic drug.

"Crazies" are the new witch hunt. Ironically it's the normal seeming people that go on these shooting tirades. Instead of helping the mentally disturbed, let's mark there clothes and lynch 'em.

Share this post


Link to post

Silly conspiracies? You've got to look at who profits from the crime. What happens whenever a new mass shooting happens?

  • The Gun Control debate awakens from its eternal slumber. Mass shootings are therefore created by gun control activists so as to ban guns. ("Red flag operations")
  • Firearm sales experience a sudden peak, as people get worried that they might not be able to buy guns afterwards and feel that they need to have weapons to defend themselves from mass shooters. Mass shootings are therefore created by weapon manufacturers as a promotional activity.
Feel free to believe wholeheartedly to either or both of these stupid conspiracy theories. To learn more, subscribe to gggmork's newsletter.

Share this post


Link to post

Lets limit cars speed limits to 35mp because we will save way more children's lives that way. Any vehicle that can go over the speedlimit is an assault vehicle from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
DeathevokatioN said:

Lets limit cars speed limits to 35mp because we will save way more children's lives that way. Any vehicle that can go over the speedlimit is an assault vehicle from now on.


I'm pretty sure we already have a class of vehicle known for assault and that it's pretty difficult to get one and drive it around. Unless, of course, to protect people, we should ensure that everyone is given a tank?

Because if you outlaw tanks, only the outlaws will have tanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now