1 killed in Kentucky high school shooting, governor says

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Wayfarer

There will never be no guns--even if there was a massive attempt at confiscation across the board (which would be impossible, considering many states don't require registration, like my state) and gun manufacturing was outlawed, it would still happen elsewhere in the world and guns would find their way into our country.

Therein lies my issue with your hypothetical--it doesn't reflect any possibility that could actually happen.

How is this so hard to grasp. I understand it could never happen. That's the point of posing a hypothetical (it doesn't have to conform to realistic expectations). Can you please just answer the question for goodness sake?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey


It's not quite through now is it?

If he was pro-gun i imagine he would have owned one.

Your imagination is the only thing that supports such a ridiculous claim--as I've noted, many people are pro-2nd Amendment and choose not to own guns.

I'm pro-religious freedom, but I'm atheist. With your logic imagination, I should be religious.

What we can infer is that Albert Einstein was a pacifist, also i did not bring the man into the equation.

I was in the Army, but I'm anti-war and anti-world police.

What you can KNOW, instead of infer, is that Einstein's views on the necessity of war evolved with the emergence of Hitler, but that doesn't mean that he suddenly loved the idea of war. He was intelligent enough to understand that sometimes it's unavoidable, and if it is, the right side should have the biggest bombs.

Using that intelligence, I would think that he'd also understand that governments and people alike can get out of control, and that the people may need to protect themselves in such a way where the right to keep and bear arms is a good choice to have for the citizenry.

You disagree.

So be it.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if Guns were banned or ownership of such severely retarded?

Only government entities and criminals would have them.

That's not a very well balanced equation in my book.

The sky would not fall, just like it does not fall in any other free nation where firearms are restricted for public use.

That's not the point at all. It's not whether the sky would fall, it's about securing freedoms in this country that are protected from the government taking them away.

If you don't like it, advocate to amend the constitution. If you don't like guns, don't own a firearm. If you're scared of people like me just because I own firearms and have a concealed-carry permit and have trained both professionally and privately in tactical uses of firearms (yet I'm "just" a civilian practicing my 2nd-amendment right by choice), then continue being scared of this boogeyman that you and an irrational society have created.

All I can do is provide numbers and cite sources that back up my claims, but again, in a country with an estimated 357,000,000 guns, and on average there are about 10,000 non-suicide deaths attributed to firearms annually, you're looking at 0.0028% of firearms being used to kill someone on average (and a good number of those deaths are justified uses of said firearms, too).

This, Mr. Shake, is what is called an irrational fear and concern on your part and people who think like you--99.9972% of all firearms in the United States are benign metal objects that do nothing bad, year after year, except maybe scare a select few overly sensitive people. Maybe focus on that reality, for a change, instead of the alarmism and doom-and-gloom approach that you bring here...

a reply to: Wayfarer

Not a fan of fruitless endeavors...and the answer is the same as, "If there were no flu viruses in America, how would that affect deaths by flu?"

Here's an intelligent answer for you: It would give the problem a few speed bumps, but not too far down the road, both guns and the virus would find ways back into the country, because we're not isolated against the rest of the world. Criminals will always have guns, whether or not they're allowed by law (hell, that's what makes them criminals).

Here's a hypothetical: What if all guns in the world were magically replaced with "tactical knives"...would the world be a safer place just because the knives don't go "pew pew?"

And then when knife violence got out of control, what if all of the knives in the world were replaced by, say, sticks? Would the world be a safer place because now we don't have knives and guns?

I practice the art of Eskrima, a martial art where one of the main weapons--the main weapon, where I train--is a stick. Do you know one of the main reasons why that art was started in the Philippines? It was to combat a society where most people carry knives, and criminals use knives in illegal ways to injure and kill people.

Here's my point: Your hypothetical is a pointless lesson in futility, because it will never be an actuality. Dreaming about impossibilities may be a fun way to spend your time, but I don't agree that it's a good use of mine, nor is it productive for this thread. So, I answered your silly question, but only for goodness sake...we all need a little goodness in our lives.

Best regards...this thread has devolved into off-topic silliness, and I'm done with your line of discussion.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Your missing the point friend. I'm merely elucidating the correlation between the existence of guns and gun deaths (which is patently obvious and something I think opponents of gun control either gloss over or outright avoid). I think most of the players here even in this thread have at some point in the past argued about gun control till they were blue in the face, and I have no desire to do so again now, but nobody can claim that removing guns wouldn't at the very least reduce gun deaths (and your argument that if guns were outlawed criminals would find some way to supply despondent teens with them for whatever reason is fallacious I think); The question from that point becomes is it possible to reduce/limit them in such a way to receive some of that benefit in an aggregate sense (which is a separate argument for another thread).

Regarding the knife debate you mentioned, I think its pretty obvious that its a lot harder for someone with a knife to affect as high a bodycount as with a firearm. Incidentally I too have a hobby of Escrima and HEMA, so I'm familiar (in a general sense) with the lethality of bladed weapons, but I don't have any doubt that a gun is the superior tool for killing.

As far as I am aware they haven't released much about the shooter that we can discuss re: mental illness (though of course its a high likelihood given the crime). I guess I'm curious as to how mental health care could be expanded/utilized enough to affect everyone (and not just those actively seeking treatment).

I guess that I'm not done.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: SlapMonkey

... nobody can claim that removing guns wouldn't at the very least reduce gun deaths (and your argument that if guns were outlawed criminals would find some way to supply despondent teens with them for whatever reason is fallacious I think); ...

Look, you obviously lack some understanding about how some criminals, even teens, get their hands on weapons. Here in Cincinnati and in other larger cities, there is an issue with "community guns," where criminals leave firearms and ammo hidden in public places so that if a criminal needs a gun, there it is, ready for the illegal task at hand.

There are many other known ways that 'shared guns' are used in the criminal community, so all that I'm saying is that access to guns wouldn't be as limited as you think, because where there's a will, there's always a way, even in the United Hypotheticals of America. (that's not meant to be demeaning, I just thought it was funny...I'm trying to reignite my sense of humor today)

The question from that point becomes is it possible to reduce/limit them in such a way to receive some of that benefit in an aggregate sense (which is a separate argument for another thread).

I think that we might see a relatively dramatic drop in suicides--at least successful ones--but I don't necessarily believe that we would see a net positive concerning violent crimes. I sincerely believe that other tools would just take the place of a gun. You can buy a machete at Harbor Freight for $4.99. A finger in the shape of a gun in one's jacket pocket is free.

Regarding the knife debate you mentioned, I think its pretty obvious that its a lot harder for someone with a knife to affect as high a bodycount as with a firearm. Incidentally I too have a hobby of Escrima and HEMA, so I'm familiar (in a general sense) with the lethality of bladed weapons, but I don't have any doubt that a gun is the superior tool for killing.

Then you are not reading the links that I'm providing. If you look at the link that shows school shootings (from where I got my numbers for past years), you'll notice that in the dramatic majority of them, it's either one person killed or injured, maybe two (and in some, zero). The argument about "as high a bodycount" is logically fallacious. And in the few where there were high numbers (like, for example, Sandy Hook), I'd be willing to bet that the shooter would have found access to a rifle with a high-capacity magazines, even if firearms were magically poofed away in America.

As far as I am aware they haven't released much about the shooter that we can discuss re: mental illness (though of course its a high likelihood given the crime). I guess I'm curious as to how mental health care could be expanded/utilized enough to affect everyone (and not just those actively seeking treatment).

I'm banking on anti-depressant or other related drugs.

One approach to changing how we deal with mental health in this country could, maybe, not prescribe drugs for depression that have side effects of 'depression' and 'suicidal thoughts.' That would be a massively appropriate start, IMO. I'm not always certain that an "expansion" of mental health is as appropriate as an overhaul would be. Our approach to mental health in this country is pretty sh**ty.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm not the one that made the ridiculous claim regarding old Alberts proclivity towards anything other than pacifism.

Whats ridiculous is that semi-automatic weaponry is still in the hands of your children, on your streets, and in your schools.

Irrational fear???

Tell that to the victims and survivors of such atrocity!

It is what it is im afraid, canny polish a turd, second amendment or otherwise.

a reply to: andy06shake


here are the options we have... The current way obviously leave something to be desired.

1: Attack the problem from new directions that do not involve getting rid of constitutionally protected rights.

2: Let a congress that has one party accused of being behilden to a foreign nation, and the other major party accused of rampant corruption and election rigging of the primary decide which constitutionally protected rights we get to keep.

3: Keep passing laws that do nothing more than infringe on our rights, and have a negligible effect on a shooters ability to get a gun.

Considering what Congress has done to the 4th you'll have to forgive me if I do not trust them with any of our remaining rights.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Some kind of meaningful solution is an obvious requirement, and to be honest, i don't have a clue what that will be that does not infringe upon the second amendment right to bear arms.

America is around 242 years old, It's 2018 not 1776, there is nobody coming to get you any longer, no boogie man in the cupboard waiting to strike(aside for the bankers but they are a hell of a lot more potent than firearms, unfortunatly), at some point in the not too distant future it may be reasonable to consider the notion that guns on the streets and in your towns and cities are more of a problem than they're worth.

Like i said if Guns were made illegal or severely retarded for public use the sky would not fall.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Whats ridiculous is that semi-automatic weaponry is still in the hands of your children, on your streets, and in your schools.

My son has had an AR in his hands, and a pump-action shotgun, and a .270 bolt-action hunting rifle, and a semi-auto pistol.

What does that have to do with anything?

Oh, you're pretending that it's my children out on the streets shooting people.


It's not. You're trying to appeal to emotion with your irrationality and it's not working.

Irrational fear???

Tell that to the victims and survivors of such atrocity!

Rationale has nothing to do with emotions...again with the logical fallacy. Do you think that makes people stop and go, "Oh, shucks, I never thought of the victims and families...silly me!"

"Irrational" literally means "not logical or reasonable."

Yes, your fear is irrational, illogical (as I've proven with actual facts and information) and unreasonable. I won't repeat it again, because you're obviously willfully ignoring that reality in lieu of responding with "but what about the children?"

In fact, I wish you the best, but this is a pointless discussion to continue with you. It's as if I'm having hypothetical conversations with every comment with which you respond.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"My son has had an AR in his hands, and a pump-action shotgun, and a .270 bolt-action hunting rifle, and a semi-auto pistol."

That's a lot of hands and weight, big lad is he?

I not pretending anything children are out on the streets shooting people, fact!

It is what it's is, the problem is apparent.

The facts and information speak for themselves.

I wish you all the best also.

a reply to: andy06shake

Actual picture of my son...he's a "handful"--that's an assault halo in one hand:

a reply to: SlapMonkey

LoL

Aye a wee bit of levity works wonders.

a reply to: andy06shake

One other way to look at it...


We are somewhere north of 270 million guns in this country, we have between 30 and 33 thousand firearm related deaths a year. That number includes suicides, lawful police shootings, gang on gang violence and regular murders, so when you break it down by the numbers is it really a gun problem?

Or is it multiple 24 hour a day news channels peddling all horror all the time?

I do not bring that up to try and lesson the horror for the families of the dead, its just a fact its barely a blip on any statistical chart.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Sadly, unless most have at least a 4 year degree, most have likely never taken stats.

It really should be taught in High School as a requirement, maybe with some dumbed down math or something....just for the concepts of it though. Once you've taken stats, you realize that they can be used to pretty much bolster any agenda you want to put forth, based on the data you CHOOSE to include and use in your analysis.

It really makes you cynical every time you hear a stat used, lol....

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gazrok

Why do you consider the people who are outspoken regarding gun control to be "Gun control nuts"?

Seems to me they are not the ones running around with firearms killing people.

Recognition that a problem exists is hardly nuts and is, in point of fact, the first step to attempting to tackle and/or address any dilemma.

If you simply MUST discuss gun control please find a gun control thread and put your thoughts there. There are a multitude of those threads available right here on ATS. This kid's plan, hatched nearly two years ago, involved killing as many people as he could with a knife. If you want to look at the underlying issues here look at the judge who oversaw his case when he was found to be in possession of a knife and a "kill list." Perhaps if that judge had taken things a bit more seriously, the kid would have been incarcerated where no guns were available and getting the help he obviously needs for his mental health issues.

Today's news featured the sentencing of a 16 yr. old girl who had hatched a plot with her boyfriend to kill both sets of parents using drugs, poison and knives. She'll be out of society for the next 15 years if things work as they should. The boyfriend got 10 years. This was one county removed from Marshall, in McCracken. There are some truly messed-up teens out there. The boy's mom insisted it was "a joke." www.wpsdlocal6.com...

a reply to: diggindirt

If you think the issue of gun control is not going to come up, or has no place in the "latest shooting" thread, you might not bother posting.

Not advocating for, or against..just saying.

Interesting development in this case: westkentuckystar.com...

Apparently this is the same judge who allowed this young man to go back to school after making threats, having a "kill list" and knives three years ago. Now he doesn't want the press to report on the case.

BENTON, KY - A Paducah-based media group is accusing the presiding judge of interfering in the case of the Marshall County shooting suspect.

According to the Courier-Journal, lawyers for Paxton Media Group, which owns WPSD-TV, The Paducah Sun and The Marshall County Tribune-Courier, have filed a petition with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. They are asking for the transcript of Friday's arraignment of 15-year-old shooting suspect Gabe Parker to be released to the public. He was arraigned on two counts of murder and 14 counts of 1st degree assault.

The Courier-Journal says the petition alleges that "Marshall Circuit Judge Jamie Jameson is 'personally acquainted' with Parker’s mother and improperly closed his arraignment; sought to stop a police interview of Parker; and appointed a public defender for him before he had jurisdiction in the case."

Another interesting note on this case---apparently the FBI never stuck its nose into this case. It is being handled on the state level....locals report that the lone FBI agent who showed up after the shooting took a look around and left.